And listening levels are important too, a lot of untreated rooms sound good until the level gets high. Some over treated rooms don't sound good until you play loud
The argument for/against room treatment
- Thread starter MadFloyd
- Start date
If I might suggest one acoustic treatment that you try. This is so cheap by audiophile standards that you can't really go wrong. Go to amazon and buy two 33" canvas bean bag covers/stuffed animal storage. Then fill them (half full is fine) with either denim insulation or fluffy fiberglass. Then put these at the points of first reflection on the floor between you and the speaker. Total cost is maybe $100-$150. This is one of two changes that I ever made to my system that made my spouse say Wow! that was amazing. (The other was when I added the equitech power conditioner back in the early 2000's.) This cleared up a smearing to the sound that you weren't really aware was there until you get rid of it. I have demo'd this for both audiophiles and non-audiophiles and they all hear how much more clear the sound is with the treatment.
I have had 3 speakers in my room and in various locations. Each one of them benefitted from this acoustic treatment. I already have a thick 100% wool rug that takes up the floor space between me and the speakers. Even a 1" thick rug doesn't absorb down into the 300-800 Hz range.
Will this work for you? Well, all speakers will have floor bounce effects. Depending on where the crossover point is, the height of the driver and how far away you sit from the speakers this may be able to be minimized. Also, if you have an ottoman then depending how it is constructed and where it is placed may be helping with this.
Give it a try. you might like it.
I have had 3 speakers in my room and in various locations. Each one of them benefitted from this acoustic treatment. I already have a thick 100% wool rug that takes up the floor space between me and the speakers. Even a 1" thick rug doesn't absorb down into the 300-800 Hz range.
Will this work for you? Well, all speakers will have floor bounce effects. Depending on where the crossover point is, the height of the driver and how far away you sit from the speakers this may be able to be minimized. Also, if you have an ottoman then depending how it is constructed and where it is placed may be helping with this.
Give it a try. you might like it.
Indeed we do. But hopefully you're not implying that all ways are equal and equally beneficial. For things that matter, such as performance, there is usally one best way and then other varied ways. Otherwise we'd all have our own trophies on our mantels for MVP of the 2021 Superbowl rather than just Tom Brady, right?
That's good to know because many just believe what they've heard or read from the "experts" over the years without questioning or ever seriously giving alternatives any consideration.
Yeah, it's a mess down here in Salem. Lot's of trees down, bent, and broken. I've not been out yet but others tell me it looks like a war zone.
Above 90db? Shoot, I didn't know they could go below 90db.
BTW, the 2 in-room videos I posted above were probably around the 101-102db levels.To be consistent, I suspect what you heard in Mike's room could entirely be done via superior speaker and subwoofer placement and tuning. Additionally, as I recall Mike has 2 bass towers with at least 4 subwoofer drivers each. With superior placement and tuning and no custom room nor treatments, I think the potential listening experience would be nothing short of exhilerating. But based on my limited experience, most any reasonble and "untreated" room should produce the same and perhaps even better results. If I were to take a strong stand, I would venture what you heard in Mike's room was exhilerating in spite of the room and treatments - not necessarily because of.
Stehno, Thank you. I now better understand your position: power delivery>speaker positioning for room integration particularly superior bass>good/great sound from reasonable rooms. Result is that no or minimal after market room treatment is needed.
I just heard a system which took this or a similar approach and the sound was very natural and enjoyable, in fact the best I've heard.
I just heard a system which took this or a similar approach and the sound was very natural and enjoyable, in fact the best I've heard.
Agree with this. I think this is why it is important to set the volume knob at the upper end + a click of where you listen to music when you are finding the best position for your speakers. The added volume really brings out the room nasties and really highlights the difference 1/16 inch in speaker position makes. Then when you turn the volume down to the normal volume it sounds really good.And listening levels are important too, a lot of untreated rooms sound good until the level gets high. Some over treated rooms don't sound good until you play loud
Exactly. Well, except that I'm not sure what you mean about power delivery as I never referenced it.
Hopefully, I only referenced playback system noise floors first and foremost and secondarily speaker / subwoofer placement and tuning. If I could only choose one, it's drastically lowering the playback system's noise floor. It's paramount to everything. Even so, there is no substitution whatsoever for superior speaker / subwoofer placement / tuning. Get both of these right and one's entire perspective of most everything about this hobby is changed forever. And no I'm not saying I've got these right because as with many things in life high-end audio is journey and not a destination. But I like to think I've got both of these criteria far more right than I've ever had them before.
By power delivery I simply mean good clean electricity coming from the panel with good grounding and then power cables that do not corrupt the sound. In other words, power cables that allow all the information to come through and not draw attention to specific sonic attributes. Not an easy thing to find.
Peter
Where folks are pursuing a high SQ and they don't want to incorporate acoustic treatments for aesthetic, cost or other reasons they, wittingly or otherwise, usually employ the same physics that a proper acoustic addresses in the set up such as keeping speakers well away from side and rear walls , listening in the nearfield etc. There is nothing wrong with achieving the same result using well targeted treatments . In fact as has been stated over and over they are likely to assist in any room (even if only subtle). The problem arises from products that are not suited to the purpose, bass traps that absorb more than just low bass consequently overdamping the room , diffusers and absorbers that alter the phase or spectra of the reflected sound etc. Not to say commercial products are not well designed , just used incorrectly
Understanding of acoustics and treatments has improved dramatically over the last 20 years but this has not always filtered down to product design , even some acoustic engineers are very old fashioned ( or sometimes just batty ) in their ideas.
It really comes down to keeping first reflections down the a 8- 10ms delay over direct sound from walls or ceiling ( our brain seems happy with the floor - its always been there) and control over bass reverb time ( if present - a lot of domestic construction is very lossy)
Then you control any brightness with broadband absorption ( often lounge furniture and your hairy fat listening buddies) out of the first reflection zones.
In small rooms treatment is a no brainer and with any ceiling below say 3m preventing reflection is the critical zone always reaps benefits.
What I am rambling on about saying is that the physics of sound is in play regardless of the system and it can be dealt with by location of gear or devices but they need to be appropriate and targeted.
On the matter of concert halls vs listening rooms you are dealing with the same issues - sound coming from a part of the space to listeners in another part. Its just a different emphasis on the same elements.
If you are interested in the acoustics of halls, Tapio Lokki from Aavar Alto university has done some amazing studies of why some halls sound better.
best stop rambling
Phil
Gotcha. I didn't catch that. But yes, it seems to me that perhaps 90% or more of all the corruption leading to a playback system's greatly raised noise floor can be traced to electrical at a high level (dirty AC from the street) but also just as important is the further perverting of all low-level electrical i.e. the very low voltage currents passing through the componentry.
My hunch is the playback system's noise floor is established the moment we power on our equipment and when we push play the low-level input signal becomes even more corrupted as it parses its way toward the speaker.
One note of interest. I'm rather amazed that when I record an in-room video to my iPhone, downloaded to my macbook, uploaded and even converted to Youtube via the internet and then played back on my macbook or iPhone via the internet and listened to via earbuds, much of the fidelity in the listening room that I've whittle away at for 19 years is preserved during playback. IOW, computers and smart phones are not suspectible to nearly the same degrees of distortion, corruption, and/or perversion that our playback systems are most definitely susceptible to. In fact, I'm kinda' surprised nobody has mentioned this before. This leads me to think there are specifcs within high-end components that put the input signal thru hell that our computer and smart phone electronics avoid.
This is an interesting read on the need for lateral reflections in concert halls:
The article states that to get a sense of spaciousness it is necessary to get a strong enough difference between left and right ear response from the reflection compared to the direct sound, which is more similar in each ear. I'll go on to speculate that with the standard 2 channel stereo triangle listening configuration in an anechoic space it's not possible to get adequate decorrelation between left and right ears to create spaciousness because both ears can hear both speakers too well - too much crosstalk. Moving the speakers wider can help but that causes HRTF problems with the forward imaging. One solution is to get the frontal imaging from the speakers by reasonably spacing them apart in front of us and then taking advantage of room reflections to add some lateral decorrelation to give us a sense of space without mucking up the original sound too much. This is the standard good listening room approach and as we all know it can create a very enjoyable experience.
I've been talking with someone who's working on crosstalk elimination software and he has found that with it enabled the room can be nearly anechoic and sound great with plenty of spaciousness and fantastic imaging from just two channels. He tried it outside and said it was stunning. This makes sense because the crosstalk elimination allows for strong decorrelation between ears while maintaining the forward placement of the speakers for good imaging and soundstage.
Killing the sound with acoustics can have at least two possible meanings - one being overly damping the mids and highs without adequately addressing the bass, resulting in a muffled, dark sound. The other being a lack of spaciousness caused by absorbing too many lateral reflections in a standard stereo setup. With surround sound setups or systems employing crosstalk elimination methods the primary concern with acoustical treatments is spectral balance of the room as those systems can provide ambience without the need for room reflections.
The article states that to get a sense of spaciousness it is necessary to get a strong enough difference between left and right ear response from the reflection compared to the direct sound, which is more similar in each ear. I'll go on to speculate that with the standard 2 channel stereo triangle listening configuration in an anechoic space it's not possible to get adequate decorrelation between left and right ears to create spaciousness because both ears can hear both speakers too well - too much crosstalk. Moving the speakers wider can help but that causes HRTF problems with the forward imaging. One solution is to get the frontal imaging from the speakers by reasonably spacing them apart in front of us and then taking advantage of room reflections to add some lateral decorrelation to give us a sense of space without mucking up the original sound too much. This is the standard good listening room approach and as we all know it can create a very enjoyable experience.
I've been talking with someone who's working on crosstalk elimination software and he has found that with it enabled the room can be nearly anechoic and sound great with plenty of spaciousness and fantastic imaging from just two channels. He tried it outside and said it was stunning. This makes sense because the crosstalk elimination allows for strong decorrelation between ears while maintaining the forward placement of the speakers for good imaging and soundstage.
Killing the sound with acoustics can have at least two possible meanings - one being overly damping the mids and highs without adequately addressing the bass, resulting in a muffled, dark sound. The other being a lack of spaciousness caused by absorbing too many lateral reflections in a standard stereo setup. With surround sound setups or systems employing crosstalk elimination methods the primary concern with acoustical treatments is spectral balance of the room as those systems can provide ambience without the need for room reflections.
Last edited:
Although I agree that individual cases should not change our views, IMHO things are not so simple as you say.
Rooms will always overlay somewhat the room sound in recordings - reflections are needed in stereo sound reproduction. We ignore the room signature because our brain has the power of subtracting the influence of the room if some conditions are met. Stereo sound reproduction is an illusion that depends on many external factors, not just on the sound wave delivery. For example, I can't relax in rooms where I clearly see the acoustic treatments. Or even worse, where I clearly see poor quality acoustic treatments ...
Stating that all rooms can benefit from acoustic treatments sounds nice but means very little. Acoustic treatments are so diverse and vague that it is always possible to find something that will improve the room. The question is that in reality, considering the existing limitations, materials commonly used and the expertise available most treatments end up doing more harm than good. Proper treatments need space, money, expertise and capability to understand customer preferences and priorities, something that most room designers ignore.
And sorry, IMHO we should not mix audiophile listening rooms, mastering and recording studios and music halls in the same comment. Too different to be used as an argument.
My listening room has two large tuned bass traps in the front corners, hidden behind curtains - they are needed with the XLF, not with the Soundlab's. I do not consider it a treated room, just a "tuned" room.
Tim, I noticed two main benefits from removing my acoustic treatments: Greater information heard at the listening seat, and a more energized room. My soundstage actually expanded and I am now able to hear much more subtle recording venue information as well as timbral information from the instruments and voices.
I think my room treatment absorbed information and energy and at the reflection points reduced the amount of right channel information on the right side of the room and the same for the left side of the room.
The overall result is a much more natural and convincing sound full of information, energy and spatial cues. My room is pretty small at 15 x 16‘.
I think my room treatment absorbed information and energy and at the reflection points reduced the amount of right channel information on the right side of the room and the same for the left side of the room.
The overall result is a much more natural and convincing sound full of information, energy and spatial cues. My room is pretty small at 15 x 16‘.
I heard these Polks at RMAF 2019... it seems to me the main advantage is the spacing between speakers is much less critical. In some circumstances this is a major advantage! The system's soundstaging and imaging was impressive but it's a narrow sweet spot. The Polks performance overall was better than expected but the tweeters are not that great, imo. Overall it was a cool demo but didn't have me looking into crosstalk elimination afterwards.
Unrelated to crosstalk, but if the recording has enough spatial cues and they make it through the speakers, the need for anything else seems to be reduced accordingly. If the spatial cues are from the recording instead of reflections, they can more convincingly portray the recording space. Personally, I like a greater proportion of direct sound but also the system needs to be capable of pretty high resolution to achieve a 3-D, immersive soundstage. I've also found that wider spacing between speakers helps.
Tim, I've not read the article you reference but I'm curious. Earlier I mentioned some just believing what they hear or read over the decades without questioning or confirming. What do you suppose the authors of this article know about drastically reducing a playback system's noise floor and the benefits thereof? Also, what might they know about superior positioning and tuning of speakers and subwoofers such that ho-hum bass is transfromed into an extremely musical bass that happens to greatly impact the entire playback presentation in a very musical way?
My hunch is that they, like so many others, know little or nothing about these matters. I suspect the same for Floyd Toole. This is not to show any disrespect for those intellectual types who dilegently attempt to research, explain, and/or describe. What I am saying is that even the best researchers don't know everything and can only work with what they know and what they have on hand. IOW, if per chance they know little or nothing of these matters then their playback systems used for their reserach are just as crippled sonically as anybody elses and maybe even more so, how might this impact their measurements and how much value do you suppose their eventual findings might be?
BTW, for reference when I mention a drastically lowered noise floor, I'm not talking of a measly 5, 10, 15, or even 30 percent improvement of levels of musicality. I can't speak for others but when I use words like drastic I actually mean words like drastic. For example, I acquired a few years ago some fabulously performing little passive, dedicated, and bi-directional filtering line conditioners for each of my components. These replaced another mfg'er's just slightly less fabulously performaning line conditioners but that company went defunct. Finding superior line conditioners has been likened unto finding a needle in a haystack. But they do exist. IMO, finding superior line conditioners is among the best performance increases one can experience out-of-the-box. But since I like to dabble, I dabbled with these line conditioners (no I didn't open them up) and applied a rather extreme methodology to them and after some time, they eventually performed my guess is 3 or even 4 or more times their already fabulous out-of-the-box performance levels. It's impossible to measure such things but I've no trouble calling this improvement drastic.
Last edited:
Peter
would you mind adding the distance to side wall from speakers and listening distance from speakers to the above dimensions ..... I am a big fan of far away from sidewalls as possible and you are clearly happy with the current set up - I apologise if you have already set this out elsewhere - I presume you have speakers on the slightly shorter wall
Phil
Here is my understanding of how this works.
Bouncing the sound off the sidewalls will give a bigger soundstage because the delay in arrival times pulls the image toward the reflection. If we do this to both walls then the soundstage is wider. In order to do this without serious sonic malady two conditions need to be met. 1. The time delay between the reflection and the direct sound needs to be at least 5-6 ms. If the sidewall time delta is >10ms then untreated walls are fine and probably preferred. If the time delay is less than 5ms and the walls are untreated then the imaging is going to suffer and the sound gets "pingy". 2. The speaker off axis response should be smooth and generally the same as the on-axis response. If this is not the case then the timbre of the instruments will be shifted.
This is why I think there is general disagreement on whether people think the first sidewall reflection should be treated. If two people have the same speakers and one person has them in a room that is say 14' wide then he/she will probably prefer to treat the sidewall. The other person has a room that is 20' wide then he/she will probably prefer not to treat it. Now mix in that the second person has a speaker with really bad off axis response then he may also prefer to treat the sidewall if he/she is really tuned into "tone & naturalness" vs. maximum soundstage width and spaciousness.
Sometimes compromises have to be made. What is important? Spaciousness & Soundstage? Precise imaging? Tone & timbre?
Would it not be easier to treat our ears? Some mini clip on bass traps that fit around our pinnas that you can bend until you get the sound you like. No WAF issues, much cheaper and no eye sore since you can't see them yourself!
To me that's like an overdamped room x 100. Not sound wise but in the sense you are separated from the world. One other reason I don't like dedicated listening rooms.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |