The argument for/against room treatment

stehno

Well-Known Member
Jul 5, 2014
1,585
456
405
Salem, OR
Stehno, I'm intrigued by your ability to play your system at an average of high 90's to low 100 dbs (if I have that right?). There is no way I could do that in my system from a 10' listening position -- maybe for awhile further back in the room (35') where I often listen while working, but I think it would over pressurize my room not to mention my second favorite organ -- my ears.

The last amplified concert I went to last year in a mid-sized club, was in the the 95-105 db range and while the sound quality was pretty good, it just felt like a damaging assault on my ears after awhile (and this was with ear protection).

So if you've managed to listen to reproduced music in a small room at those constant levels without doing serious damage to your hearing, and it sounds good, you've pulled off a miracle.

LOL. Don't they say the good Lord works in mysterious ways, Wil? I take it you’re one of those with overly-sensitive ears? Sorry to hear if that’s true. If I had to listen at the low listening volume levels as some do, I would have chucked this hobby decades ago and taken up whittling or maybe glass-blowing. I’m not a lover of music like some but I do love music. More importantly I love what a playback system can potentially do to preserve what's actually embedded in a recording. In contrast I suppose to others who love what their acoustic panels do to make recordings sound more pleasing (less fatiguing).

Regardless, how some can listen to what could and should be exhilarating pieces at perhaps half the volume of a live performance is beyond me. To me, that's like a Forumula 1 driver running a race at half speed and of course coming in dead last but the driver is smiling cuz he didn't crash.

Then again, I’ve heard it said more than once that hearing damage is not just decibels alone but often times it’s the increased distortions associated with the higher volumes. If that's the case, I'm thinking I'm good and maybe it's the ones who NEED acoustic panels that you should be preaching to? :) Moreover, there are very few if any playback systems worth listening to at higher volume levels since distortions increase with the music when volume is increased. But for me it's just another of the many benefits of a much lowered noise floor when loud and clean playback music can be quite pleasant. Even poorly-engineered recordings like the one below.

BTW, of course you couldn't listen to your playback system at these volume levels. Your playback system with its much raised noise floor would probably have you running for the exit within 30 seconds with maybe one or both ears bleeding. Besides, it seems a bit presumptuous of you to equate what you experience in your room with what I experience in my room. For example. I don't recall even once reading about your experiences resulting from any attempts you've made to drastically reduce your system's noise floor. If you had, I'm sure I would have remembered. Nevertheless, that implies to me that you're potentially comparing apples (your system) to oranges (my system) and presuming similar results - based only on your experiences with what you're familar with.

But in all seriousness, this is now your 3rd or 4th time reaching out to me about this topic. Please don't preach to me again about listening levels.


Back on topic. These first reflections are really harshing my buzz.
 
Last edited:

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,391
4,986
978
Switzerland
I believe that it’s all about the room. You have to treat every room individually. I had no treatment (other than furniture and an area rug) when my system was in a large great room with cathedral ceilings. When I converted my garage into my music room, I absolutely needed to at defusers to the ceiling.

but we can also go crazy and over damp our rooms zapping excitement.

I have found with my very high and sloped ceilings that no treatment is really needed as well.
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,678
4,467
963
Greater Boston
LOL. Don't they say the good Lord works in mysterious ways, Wil? I take it you’re one of those with overly-sensitive ears?

[...] But in all seriousness, this is now your 3rd or 4th time reaching out to me about this topic. Please don't preach to me again about listening levels.

This has nothing to do with overly sensitive ears but with human physiology.

I listen quite loudly too, but I follow NIOSH recommendations. I often go to the edge, but not beyond:


(The values in that NIOSH chart for dBa translate to numbers approximately 5 higher for dB, e.g., 95 dBA is about 100 dB.)

If continuing at your listening levels you want to be deaf in 10 or 20 years, go ahead. But don't tell us you were not warned.

You can pose as a tough guy, but you can't beat your own human physiology. You can't will away the physical limitations of human nature, which are yours as well.
 

DasguteOhr

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2013
2,352
2,510
645
Germany
In the frequency range 150hz to 20khz, furniture in the room is usually sufficient a couch, record shelf and carpet...etc
In my Room the reverberation time is 0.4-0.45ms sounds energetically more realistic
In the bass 150hz to 20hz it is better to fight the individual room modes than to dampen the whole range.
Have the room measured acoustically, then you can see individual room modes.
then you can have a plate absorber or helmet wood resonator built here. which swallows the room mode at the exact frequency.
1500577416.png scopus-tuned-membrane-bass-trap-t100.png

In my opinion the better way. the bass sounds much better with this way
 
  • Like
Reactions: christoph

wil

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2015
1,480
1,506
428
LOL. Don't they say the good Lord works in mysterious ways, Wil? I take it you’re one of those with overly-sensitive ears? Sorry to hear if that’s true. If I had to listen at the low listening volume levels as some do, I would have chucked this hobby decades ago and taken up whittling or maybe glass-blowing. I’m not a lover of music like some but I do love music. More importantly I love what a playback system can potentially do to preserve what's actually embedded in a recording. In contrast I suppose to others who love what their acoustic panels do to make recordings sound more pleasing (less fatiguing).

Regardless, how some can listen to what could and should be exhilarating pieces at perhaps half the volume of a live performance is beyond me. To me, that's like a Forumula 1 driver running a race at half speed and of course coming in dead last but the driver is smiling cuz he didn't crash.

Then again, I’ve heard it said more than once that hearing damage is not just decibels alone but often times it’s the increased distortions associated with the higher volumes. If that's the case, I'm thinking I'm good and maybe it's the ones who NEED acoustic panels that you should be preaching to? :) Moreover, there are very few if any playback systems worth listening to at higher volume levels since distortions increase with the music when volume is increased. But for me it's just another of the many benefits of a much lowered noise floor when loud and clean playback music can be quite pleasant. Even poorly-engineered recordings like the one below.

BTW, of course you couldn't listen to your playback system at these volume levels. Your playback system with its much raised noise floor would probably have you running for the exit within 30 seconds with maybe one or both ears bleeding. Besides, it seems a bit presumptuous of you to equate what you experience in your room with what I experience in my room. For example. I don't recall even once reading about your experiences resulting from any attempts you've made to drastically reduce your system's noise floor. If you had, I'm sure I would have remembered. Nevertheless, that implies to me that you're potentially comparing apples (your system) to oranges (my system) and presuming similar results - based only on your experiences with what you're familar with.

But in all seriousness, this is now your 3rd or 4th time reaching out to me about this topic. Please don't preach to me again about listening levels.


Back on topic. These first reflections are really harshing my buzz.
One reason I've brought it up a couple of times is that your noted db levels don't make sense to me and I don't believe you've answered the direct question. Sorry if I've missed it.

Allow me to try again: When you say "98 to 102 db" what does that mean? 98 to 102 average or peak? When I listen to music there's usually a 10 to 20 point range between average to peak. So if you're average is 100 db, then your peaks might be 115 and up. Are you listening to music in a small room that's peaking at 115-120 db?

I typically listen with average levels at 75 to 80 db with peaks into the mid 90's. That sounds plenty life-life to me! My ears are not over-sensitive and I aim to keep them healthy. I've never heard of anyone listening to recorded music regularly in a small room at 100-120 levels, hence my stubborn curiosity...
 
Last edited:

Tim Link

Well-Known Member
Feb 12, 2019
271
182
128
55
OK. Can you please tell me how you do this?
Are you asking me how I EQ the headphones? I'm using AudioHijack on my Mac to access the the Audio Units built in to Mac OS to provide parametric EQ. To get the curves I'm using testing done by others as I don't have means of measuring headphones. Right now I've got Grado SR325e and they have a pretty strong spike around 10k according to Innerfidelity; https://www.stereophile.com/images/ifmeasure/GradoSR325e.pdf EQing that 10k and a bit at 2k down sounds better to me and makes the headphones more enjoyable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kal Rubinson

wil

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2015
1,480
1,506
428
I thought I would also add that. as someone with "sensitive" hearing, and not suffering from hearing loss, lower volume (65 db avg for instance) music is just as satisfying as music at hair-curling levels. I believe the key is having a system with good dynamics at lower levels. Definitely not "elevator music. YMMV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: morricab and DaveC

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,678
4,467
963
Greater Boston
I thought I would also add that. as someone with "sensitive" hearing, and not suffering from hearing loss, lower volume (65 db avg for instance) music is just as satisfying as music at hair-curling levels. I believe the key is having a system with good dynamics at lower levels. Definitely not "elevator music. YMMV.

My system is very dynamic at lower levels, which makes for great night listening -- just like probably yours, my speakers don't need a certain volume to "wake up". However, I still prefer relatively loud, something closer to concert levels. For string quartets that is often higher than in a regular concert hall, more like close up in a small venue, such as in 'house concerts' that I have attended.

Yet never as loud as to exceed NIOSH recommended levels. I may indulge in constantly loud music, such as rock, for shorter periods, but I try to avoid this on long listening days since then exposure accumulates.

Folliwing very rare days where, due to circumstances, my exposure to loud sounds has been excessive, I give my ears a rest the next day in order to allow them to recover. One day of no music is nothing compared to hopefully years of still healthy hearing in front of me.
 
Last edited:

DaveC

Industry Expert
Nov 16, 2014
3,899
2,141
495
I thought I would also add that. as someone with "sensitive" hearing, and not suffering from hearing loss, lower volume (65 db avg for instance) music is just as satisfying as music at hair-curling levels. I believe the key is having a system with good dynamics at lower levels. Definitely not "elevator music. YMMV.


I agree, I want good performance at all SPLs. SET + very efficient low-mass speakers work really well at low levels, both amp and speaker drivers are suitable. On my speaker it was tricky to get high SPLs sounding the same as low to moderate volumes with my super light midrange driver, but this is as important to me as low volume performance. I can't stand hearing distortion increase with SPLs!
 

DaveC

Industry Expert
Nov 16, 2014
3,899
2,141
495
My system is very dynamic at lower levels, which makes for great night listening -- just like probably yours, my speakers don't need a certain volume to "wake up". However, I still prefer relatively loud, something closer to concert levels. For string quartets that is often higher than in a regular concert hall, more like close up in a small venue, such as in 'house concerts' that I have attended.

Yet never as loud as to exceed NIOSH recommended levels. I may indulge in constantly loud music, such as rock, for shorter periods, but I try to avoid this on long listening days since then exposure accumulates.

Folliwing very rare days where, due to circumstances, my exposure to loud sounds has been excessive, I give my ears a rest the next day in order to allow them to recover. One day of no music is nothing compared to hopefully years of still healthy hearing in front of me.

Yup, giving the ears rest is important, and I also strongly feel like the lower the distortion the easier it is on the ears. For example, clean, undistorted music at high levels vs a chainsaw operating nearby, both at the same SPL... I think your ears can handle the music for much longer without issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: morricab

DaveC

Industry Expert
Nov 16, 2014
3,899
2,141
495
I have been fascinated with crosstalk elimination but never have found a way to practically implement it into a permanent listening situation. Using extra drivers or digital processing has always colored the sound too much for me, and using a divider panel is just plain impractical. I'm interested in the idea of a sophisticated stereo upmixer that can mix two channel into a 3 or more across the front configuration without degrading the quality. That would allow wide speaker positioning without holes in the soundstage. So far the only good results I've heard have been from stuff mixed originally to more channels, but if our ears can do it it seems good enough software should be able to determine the panning of sounds in a 2 channel mix and send it cleanly to the appropriately placed speaker.

All that being said, I'm pretty happy with the standard 2 channel setup and appropriate room treatments to tighten the bass and adjust early reflections to suite preferences. My own simple experiments with creating multi channel mixes and then downmixing them to stereo got me thinking that adding extra channels was a lot of work for a subtle

Good headphones don't sound dead to me like an overdamped room but the external imaging is non existent. The soundwaves need to travel across the head and ear and adjust accordingly to small head movements to be convincing. Now that I've learned to EQ a couple of my headphones reasonably well I do find headphone listening to be quite pleasurable but it's a separate kind of experience. I agree that the degree of ambient information embedded in the recording has an effect on how much room reflections are desirable. I've found playing with horns of various dispersion that close mic vocals can sound great with a really wide dispersion horn, but complex symphonic work recorded in ambient spaces sounds best to me with extremely narrow dispersion horns. The narrow horns were also able to create a full 180 sound stage at times. I've settled with an intermediate dispersion with good off axis response. Amazingly I haven't changed anything in months now!


I'm pretty happy with my horns, my speaker uses a 330 Hz LeCleach horn from 400-15,000 Hz, so you can listen relatively nearfield, and you can space the speakers pretty wide with lots of toe-in without losing a clear center image. This gives you a lot of the advantages I hear with crosstalk cancellation and can produce a room-filling, immersive 3-D soundstage.

What's interesting with crosstalk cancellation is you can do it with narrow speaker spacing too! So for the ability to project images outside the boundaries of the speakers, it's impossible to beat. I feel my horns are pretty room-friendly but the Polks have a massive advantage and that matters a lot if your setup is really limited. I think the Polk's idea is good, execution is not exactly YG or Wilson-level though, lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tim Link

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,391
4,986
978
Switzerland
Yup, giving the ears rest is important, and I also strongly feel like the lower the distortion the easier it is on the ears. For example, clean, undistorted music at high levels vs a chainsaw operating nearby, both at the same SPL... I think your ears can handle the music for much longer without issue.
This is probably why some have observed that horn users listen louder. The horn system is going to be lower in distortion than a typical speaker at a given volume and distortion is one of the main indicators that it is getting too loud. Without the indicators people tend to turn it up to more lifelike levels.
 

Tim Link

Well-Known Member
Feb 12, 2019
271
182
128
55
I'm pretty happy with my horns, my speaker uses a 330 Hz LeCleach horn from 400-15,000 Hz, so you can listen relatively nearfield, and you can space the speakers pretty wide with lots of toe-in without losing a clear center image. This gives you a lot of the advantages I hear with crosstalk cancellation and can produce a room-filling, immersive 3-D soundstage.

What's interesting with crosstalk cancellation is you can do it with narrow speaker spacing too! So for the ability to project images outside the boundaries of the speakers, it's impossible to beat. I feel my horns are pretty room-friendly but the Polks have a massive advantage and that matters a lot if your setup is really limited. I think the Polk's idea is good, execution is not exactly YG or Wilson-level though, lol.
I've never got to hear a LeCleach horn. Nobody makes a cheap plastic one that I can buy and experiment with, as far as I know. What do you use to drive that horn down to 400 Hz? Like you, I've got the speakers set wide with a lot of toe-in and I get a good sound stage across the front of the room with a solid center image. Currently I don't get any of the ultra wide 180 degree effects but that doesn't happen for me on most recordings anyway.
 

stehno

Well-Known Member
Jul 5, 2014
1,585
456
405
Salem, OR
This has nothing to do with overly sensitive ears but with human physiology.

I listen quite loudly too, but I follow NIOSH recommendations. I often go to the edge, but not beyond:


(The values in that NIOSH chart for dBa translate to numbers approximately 5 higher for dB, e.g., 95 dBA is about 100 dB.)

If continuing at your listening levels you want to be deaf in 10 or 20 years, go ahead. But don't tell us you were not warned.

You can pose as a tough guy, but you can't beat your own human physiology. You can't will away the physical limitations of human nature, which are yours as well.

I wonder. Might it be that you guys continue to derail this thread because you're still unable to connect the dots? OSHA regulations, acoustic panels, first reflections, earplugs when listening to music, crosstalk, low-volume levels, low-level dynamics, etc, etc. Are these really the things performance-oriented high-end audio types consider in the pursuit of excellence and striving toward the absolute sound?

BTW, as you continue to derail the topic of this thread, do you guys realize your thinking and strategies are flawed even defying logic? For example. Are you aware that the closer your listening volumes get toward elevator music volume levels, the less beneficial your acoustic treatments?

Below is yet another in-room video in a room with no acoustic treatments and yet you are still seemingly unable to discern what you're hearing. Not only that, it does not seem to register with you that your lower-volume systems supported by acoustic treatments are incapable of generating perhaps anything close to this same level of musicality at higher volumes and no acoustic treatments.

How is it that you guys are still unable to connect the dots? It's not rocket science. I'll ask once again. Is it at all possible that your acoustic treatments do little more than make an otherwise intolerable playback system a bit more tolerable / less fatiguing? Is that really what you call more musical?

The topic is arguments for/against room acoustic treatments. Surely you derailers have smartphones. Capture an in-room listening session and demonstrate for the rest of us what your acoustic treatments do to improve your playback systems' level of musicality.


Behold. Higher listening volumes with no acoustic treatments and no custom room. Just sufficient speaker positioning, subwoofer tuning, and a greatly lowered playback system noise floor. It doesn't get much simpler than that and yet you are still unable to connect the dots?
 

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,391
4,986
978
Switzerland
I wonder. Might it be that you guys continue to derail this thread because you're still unable to connect the dots? OSHA regulations, acoustic panels, first reflections, earplugs when listening to music, crosstalk, low-volume levels, low-level dynamics, etc, etc. Are these really the things performance-oriented high-end audio types consider in the pursuit of excellence and striving toward the absolute sound?

BTW, as you continue to derail the topic of this thread, do you guys realize your thinking and strategies are flawed even defying logic? For example. Are you aware that the closer your listening volumes get toward elevator music volume levels, the less beneficial your acoustic treatments?

Below is yet another in-room video in a room with no acoustic treatments and yet you are still seemingly unable to discern what you're hearing. Not only that, it does not seem to register with you that your lower-volume systems supported by acoustic treatments are incapable of generating perhaps anything close to this same level of musicality at higher volumes and no acoustic treatments.

How is it that you guys are still unable to connect the dots? It's not rocket science. I'll ask once again. Is it at all possible that your acoustic treatments do little more than make an otherwise intolerable playback system a bit more tolerable / less fatiguing? Is that really what you call more musical?

The topic is arguments for/against room acoustic treatments. Surely you derailers have smartphones. Capture an in-room listening session and demonstrate for the rest of us what your acoustic treatments do to improve your playback systems' level of musicality.


Behold. Higher listening volumes with no acoustic treatments and no custom room. Just sufficient speaker positioning, subwoofer tuning, and a greatly lowered playback system noise floor. It doesn't get much simpler than that and yet you are still unable to connect the dots?

I also have managed to get really good sound over the years with no room acoustic treatment...maybe some record shelves acting as diffusers but nothing on purpose. Good speakers, good electronics, some control on power quality...
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeterA

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2011
12,521
10,687
3,515
USA
Stehno, which recording of Firebird is that? It sounds rather different from my recording in terms of performance and emphasis of certain instruments.

I agree with your point that clean power, speaker and listening position, and low system noise level can go a long way to achieving great sound without the need for audiophile acoustic room treatments. When all this is working together, when can surely listen at a more realistic volume.
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,678
4,467
963
Greater Boston
BTW, as you continue to derail the topic of this thread, do you guys realize your thinking and strategies are flawed even defying logic? For example. Are you aware that the closer your listening volumes get toward elevator music volume levels, the less beneficial your acoustic treatments?

If you would have paid attention, I do not listen at elevators levels, but rather loudly, even though I avoid ear-damaging volume levels. I agree, room treatments or other means to get rid of unwanted reflections/resonances are more important at loud listening levels.

The topic is arguments for/against room acoustic treatments. Surely you derailers have smartphones. Capture an in-room listening session and demonstrate for the rest of us what your acoustic treatments do to improve your playback systems' level of musicality.

I would have expected that you know by now where I stand on the Audiophile Video Wars on WBF and that I don't do videos. Most videos don't sound good, and none that I have heard sound convincing. That includes your videos too.

How is it that you guys are still unable to connect the dots? It's not rocket science. I'll ask once again. Is it at all possible that your acoustic treatments do little more than make an otherwise intolerable playback system a bit more tolerable / less fatiguing? Is that really what you call more musical?

I have in fact answered that question in #88.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lagonda

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,678
4,467
963
Greater Boston
Yup, giving the ears rest is important, and I also strongly feel like the lower the distortion the easier it is on the ears. For example, clean, undistorted music at high levels vs a chainsaw operating nearby, both at the same SPL... I think your ears can handle the music for much longer without issue.

Sustained levels of 110 dB like with a chain saw are probably not a good idea with music either. But yes, lower distortion helps. And the lower the distortion got in my system over time, the more I felt inclined to listen loudly. Also, the less distortion, the less loud the music seems. There have been many moments lately where I have thought that cranking up more would be fun, but my SPL meter told me in bold numbers: "Nope, buddy, not a good idea for your ears".

Of course even undistorted music can cause hearing damage over time at excessive levels. Many classical musicians have hearing damage, and in recent years some orchestras have, with mixed success, tried to shield musicians from hearing damage by plastic barriers. Some of the most affected players seem to be the ones sitting right in front of the trumpets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wil

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,391
4,986
978
Switzerland
Stehno, which recording of Firebird is that? It sounds rather different from my recording in terms of performance and emphasis of certain instruments.

I agree with your point that clean power, speaker and listening position, and low system noise level can go a long way to achieving great sound without the need for audiophile acoustic room treatments. When all this is working together, when can surely listen at a more realistic volume.
Do you have any power regeneration in your system? I use it for my sources and I find it helps a lot...depends on your location probably and power stabilty but I have found it to be mostly a big plus.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing