Audio Science: Does it explain everything about how something sounds?

[jkeny]

Hmmm, AFAIK, there is no single agreement on room acoustics, is there?
Someone mentioned Ethan Winer earlier & I see a lot of people agree with his room treatment approach & an equal number disagree
I see David Gresinger's research disagree with the relevance of some of the standard room measurement metrics.

Is there such widespread agreement on the application of science to room acoustics & why is there no one target profile & how to achieve it?

 

[853guy]

Hmmm, AFAIK, there is no single agreement on room acoustics, is there?
Someone mentioned Ethan Winer earlier & I see a lot of people agree with his room treatment approach & an equal number disagree
I see David Gresinger's research disagree with the relevance of some of the standard room measurement metrics.

Is there such widespread agreement on the application of science to room acoustics & why is there no one target profile & how to achieve it?

I'm guessing because a horn with two 18" woofers in an OB isn't going to energise a room in the same way an ESL57 will, or a Magico will, or a German Physiks will.

Each of these will work best in certain positions within a room and within certain spaces, but some rooms will be too big or too small or too boxy for that particular transducer and no amount of diffraction/diffusion/absorption will change that. For many of us who don't have a dedicated space, there's often a door, or a stair well, or a partner's must-have-or-I'm-leaving-you piece of furniture that compromise the ability in achieving "ideal" placement. Many of us rent, so permanent changes are impossible. Some just have kooky rooms with weird dimensions and a glass wall with pretentious fish in it.

Sometimes, a room is optimised around a particular speaker (an "ideal" scenario), but when that speaker is upgraded (or a different topology is introduced - a dipole for instance) the room acoustics don't reflect the new energy spectrum and the result is compromised. Sometimes an upgrade in amplification tames/inflames a particular node and recalibration is necessary.

That's often why the "in my room, with my speakers, playing my music" caveat is often applied. Not because the science of room acoustics isn't valid, but because each system is a set of compromises delicately balanced. Can measurements get one closer to the "ideal" through judicious use of room treatment/DSP? Of course, but only if all other things (the way the speaker puts energy into that particular room) are equal, though they seldom are.

 

[DaveC]

It is the other way around. The more the first reflections are controlled and the better the room acoustics are, the more the lower noise floor of a system is audible. If your room acoustics are horrible, you will hear little improvement going from a system with higher noise floor to one with a lower one.

And bad room acoustics suppress the recorded acoustics of the hall because unwanted room reflections override that spatial information. The more a system inherently is capable of reproducing this low-level spatial information from recordings, the more you will hear improvement going from bad room acoustics to well controlled room acoustics. That is, the closer a playback system gets to live music aka the absolute sound, the more important the room acoustics, first reflections, etc. -- Precisely the opposite from your assertion.

There will not be that much difference between a boombox playing in a good room or in a bad room -- it will sound like a boombox either way.

I agree, one of the signs things are right is both the speakers AND the listening room boundaries sonically disappear, the spatial cues in the recording should determine the soundstage, not your room.

The other issue is the dispersion pattern of the speaker. With a controlled directivity speaker the room is less important vs a wide dispersion speaker.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Hmmm, AFAIK, there is no single agreement on room acoustics, is there?
Someone mentioned Ethan Winer earlier & I see a lot of people agree with his room treatment approach & an equal number disagree
I see David Gresinger's research disagree with the relevance of some of the standard room measurement metrics.

Is there such widespread agreement on the application of science to room acoustics & why is there no one target profile & how to achieve it?

Of course there is no agreement about room acoustics among audiophiles. Do they agree on much of anything? Some of the reasons are in my previous post. How many who doubt its contributions have really tried it and applied it in a reasonably thorough manner?

Ethan Winer? He will gladly sell you some treatments, but he will not come to your home, properly measure and apply them correctly and consistently for you, unless possibly if you pay him a big fee. Since a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, it is certainly possible for a DIYer to screw up the treatment process. But, there is no doubt that his devices have a measureable and audible effect on the sound of a room. To optimize the results sonically, one needs an understanding of the underlying acoustic science. I am not specifically recommending Winer or any other seller of treatments. But, there are enough testimonials about positive effects of various treatments even in this thread.

I do not know of Greisinger's views. Maybe that is because he is not influential in the field. His views may differ from others. But, exceptions are quite common in applied science of all kinds. Is there universal agreement about global warming? No, just a very strong scientific consensus, with some dissenters.

Target curves get into the area of psychoacoustics and perception. Different experimenters have obtained somewhat different results than others based on human subjects under different conditions. But, if you look at many, rather than a few, of these, they tend to have more similarities than differences. There is a general convergence, but specific individuals may have their own preferences that depart somewhat from the consensus.

It is an extreme charachure to believe that all science has or must have hard and fast rules, particularly where human reactions, perceptions or activity are involved. Why is there no single drug medically prescribed for all patients with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc.

 

[DaveC]

Seems like this thread has taken a tangent to room acoustics and treatments, a place where objective science generally serves us very well. IMHO, while there are some spaces that can sound pretty damn good untreated, once measured and appropriately treated they will sound better.

As Dr. Schnitta said upon initial measurements in my room... "Its not terrible as is, but as the volume goes up the destructive interference becomes greater with larger impact on the sonic presentation as a whole." Exactly what I hear—at higher volumes the sound just seems to get confused. In this arena I believe audio 'science' is reasonably well sorted out, though I am sure different professionals and engineers may interpret the results somewhat differently, as some will argue live-end/dead-end vs the opposite, or how much diffusion vs. absorbtion will create the most natural sounding space.

I agree with the quote and this is why as the system and room acoustics get better it's possible to listen at higher volumes without fatigue. I believe testing a system at higher volumes more easily reveals it's weaknesses.

 

[Tony Lauck]

IMO, nothing could be further from the truth.

If you had a live band playing music in your listening room, aside from perhaps desiring a bit more space to allow the music to expand and perhaps wishing for a bit more distance between the instruments and your ears, the last thing on your mind should be first reflections, suck outs, etc. Why? Because live music is live music and regardless of the venue and your listening perspective you are still hearing nearly 100% of the music info. Might the presentation sound more musical in your garage or the Stanford Church where the music can breathe and expand? Sure, but it's still no more live and certainly no more detailed than the band playing in your listening room.

Sounds like a lack of experience with live music in a room one has selected and set up. Changing the room acoustics will affect the quality of live music. If the room acoustics are poor, the music will sound real, or more precisely real bad. The result may be unpleasant as well as unmusical. It could be that there ends up being no music at all if the musicians hate the sound they hear and stop playing or fatigue early from adjusting their playing to make up deficiencies in the room.

 

[853guy]

Sounds like a lack of experience with live music in a room one has selected and set up. Changing the room acoustics will affect the quality of live music. If the room acoustics are poor, the music will sound real, or more precisely real bad. The result may be unpleasant as well as unmusical. It could be that there ends up being no music at all if the musicians hate the sound they hear and stop playing or fatigue early from adjusting their playing to make up deficiencies in the room.

Because most people hate drummers - including other drummers, especially if the drummer in question has a lot of needless splash cymbals and insists on two kick drums to "keep it real" - in my early days I would always do as much set up at home before the gig so I didn't waste the precious time of the guitarist to "nail their tone" at sound check.

I would get out my snare, remove the old heads, clean the bearing edges, put on new heads, tune the heads above pitch, and then de-tune them to allow the head to better settle on the bearing edges, carefully tweaking each lug until the snare sounded amazing.

I would then turn up at the gig for sound check and whaddya know - the snare would sound like pants.

I began taking up the guitarists "tone time" during sound check to tune the snare and the rest of the kit to the room, because an acoustic instrument is almost inseparable from the sound of the room itself. The two become one, which is why Studio A at Avatar NYC is almost never not booked.

 

[jkeny]

Thanks 853guy, yes there will be many variables & parameters to this room treatment.

I agree, one of the signs things are right is both the speakers AND the listening room boundaries sonically disappear, the spatial cues in the recording should determine the soundstage, not your room.

The other issue is the dispersion pattern of the speaker. With a controlled directivity speaker the room is less important vs a wide dispersion speaker.

True, if the room disappears then I'm all for it but I do find this happens without room treatment too & can be the result of upstream electronics

Of course there is no agreement about room acoustics among audiophiles. Do they agree on much of anything? Some of the reasons are in my previous post. How many who doubt its contributions have really tried it and applied it in a reasonably thorough manner?

Ethan Winer? He will gladly sell you some treatments, but he will not come to your home, properly measure and apply them correctly and consistently for you, unless possibly if you pay him a big fee. Since a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, it is certainly possible for a DIYer to screw up the treatment process. But, there is no doubt that his devices have a measureable and audible effect on the sound of a room. To optimize the results sonically, one needs an understanding of the underlying acoustic science. I am not specifically recommending Winer or any other seller of treatments. But, there are enough testimonials about positive effects of various treatments even in this thread.

I do not know of Greisinger's views. Maybe that is because he is not influential in the field. His views may differ from others. But, exceptions are quite common in applied science of all kinds. Is there universal agreement about global warming? No, just a very strong scientific consensus, with some dissenters.

Target curves get into the area of psychoacoustics and perception. Different experimenters have obtained somewhat different results than others based on human subjects under different conditions. But, if you look at many, rather than a few, of these, they tend to have more similarities than differences. There is a general convergence, but specific individuals may have their own preferences that depart somewhat from the consensus.

It is an extreme charachure to believe that all science has or must have hard and fast rules, particularly where human reactions, perceptions or activity are involved. Why is there no single drug medically prescribed for all patients with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc.

I wasn't talking about agreement between audiophiles (we know that is part of the disease ) - I was talking about those who would be considered to be involved (or consider themselves) in the audio science of room acoustics & treatment.
Sure, I can sell you a rug/curtains/soft furnishings, in fact anything to put in your room & show you a measurable difference afterwards - doesn't mean I have improved anything
David Griesinger physicist who works in the field of sound and music - his research is here A lot of his later research is in the area of large halls but his early research is fundamental psychoacoustic research & applicable to all room acoustics, AFAIK.

One interesting thing you say "It is an extreme charachure to believe that all science has or must have hard and fast rules, particularly where human reactions, perceptions or activity are involved." Is this not what is at the core of this thread - what role does audio science have in what we hear. Not wishing to pick at old sores but did the Harmon speaker study not have this hard & fast rule established for a certain aspect of speakers?

 

[ddk]

Hmmm, AFAIK, there is no single agreement on room acoustics, is there?
Someone mentioned Ethan Winer earlier & I see a lot of people agree with his room treatment approach & an equal number disagree
I see David Gresinger's research disagree with the relevance of some of the standard room measurement metrics.

Is there such widespread agreement on the application of science to room acoustics & why is there no one target profile & how to achieve it?

John,

Acoustics is even more of an art than science, the real pros know that and probably why there's no consensus. Some here think that a mic, some software and a bunch of giant tampons will address everything and since that won't cut it, let's apply some digital Eq! Avery Fisher Hall at Lincoln center is great example of where science failed miserably. Hundreds of $millions later and its still crap! Just google the history of this hall, its unbelievable. Here are a few articles, go to the Acoustic section


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avery_Fisher_Hall

http://memim.com/avery-fisher-hall.html

Nice history here;

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~dtl/89S/restrict/AFH/afh.html

And it looks another NY Hall is suffering from the science too, here's an excerpt from this article which imo applies across the board here;

"But it also takes something away. After a while you stop marveling at how crisp the textures are and start wondering whether listening to music really should feel like examining insect parts under a microscope. Probably not. A lot of music simply doesn’t lend itself to this kind of close-up peering. It demands at least the hint of mystery and allure that a hall’s natural resonance ought to provide."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/arts/music/02tully.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I'll let the armchair scientists get on with their… whatever!

david

 

[jkeny]

John,

Acoustics is even more of an art than science, the real pros know that and probably why there's no consensus. Some here think that a mic, some software and a bunch of giant tampons will address everything and since that won't cut it, let's apply some digital Eq! Avery Fisher Hall at Lincoln center is great example of where science failed miserably. Hundreds of $millions later and its still crap! Just google the history of this hall, its unbelievable. Here are a few articles, go to the Acoustic section


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avery_Fisher_Hall

http://memim.com/avery-fisher-hall.html

Nice history here;

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~dtl/89S/restrict/AFH/afh.html

And it looks another NY Hall is suffering from the science too, here's an excerpt from this article which imo applies across the board here;

"But it also takes something away. After a while you stop marveling at how crisp the textures are and start wondering whether listening to music really should feel like examining insect parts under a microscope. Probably not. A lot of music simply doesn’t lend itself to this kind of close-up peering. It demands at least the hint of mystery and allure that a hall’s natural resonance ought to provide."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/arts/music/02tully.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I'll let the armchair scientists get on with their… whatever!

david

Loved your bit about "giant tampons" - I feel most acoustic treatments are about as welcome in my living space as these would be. They strike me to be musical ""passion killers" just as much as their smaller versions are also "passion killers" when encountered in other, non musical, circumstances

Griesinger has a bit to say about the problems of the Avery Fisher hall & predicts that the rebuild will be a disaster - so he get sit right on this one, apparently - see 18:30 into this video

 

[ddk]

Loved your bit about "giant tampons" - I feel most acoustic treatments are about as welcome in my living space as these would be. They strike me to be musical ""passion killers" just as much as their smaller versions are also "passion killers" when encountered in other, non musical, circumstances

Griesinger has a bit to say about the problems of the Avery Fisher hall & predicts that the rebuild will be a disaster - so he get sit right on this one, apparently - see 18:30 into this video

thanks for the link John, never heard of him before.
david

 

[jkeny]

thanks for the link John, never heard of him before.
david

Worth reading his papers - makes quite a bit of common sense (as good science often does but not always)

 

[microstrip]

(...) Griesinger has a bit to say about the problems of the Avery Fisher hall & predicts that the rebuild will be a disaster - so he get sit right on this one, apparently - see 18:30 into this video

We have referred to Griesinger several times in WBF in the past - his writings on clarity were a good confirmation of the statement on your signature - the misapplied "science" seems to be killing modern listening spaces, old thumb rules were much better. He clearly states that the scientific ISO3382 measures fail to define or measure clarity and suggests new approaches to this problem.

Audio science tells us that small rooms are very different from large spaces and that most audio measurements and well built theories that were created to evaluate large spaces can not be applied to small spaces. This is why as Bobvin in his previous post refers than different professionals have so different and even opposite views. Why the best of them create proprietary techniques with a mix of science and empirical knowledge that allow them to create great listening rooms, and why unfortunately mediocre treated rooms proliferate.

Pretending that an amateur (as me) playing in a small room is using science to treat his room just because he is using a calibrated microphone with REW is a nice myth. Audio science mostly tells us how poorly we are using our impressive measuring tools ... The measuring tools are excellent and really needed to diagnose problems if you have good mathematical predictive tools, but a very large percentage of the work is still carried by "feeling" and "experience". And "experiences" in this field means a lot of resources and time.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Y

Thanks 853guy, yes there will be many variables & parameters to this room treatment.


True, if the room disappears then I'm all for it but I do find this happens without room treatment too & can be the result of upstream electronics

I wasn't talking about agreement between audiophiles (we know that is part of the disease ) - I was talking about those who would be considered to be involved (or consider themselves) in the audio science of room acoustics & treatment.
Sure, I can sell you a rug/curtains/soft furnishings, in fact anything to put in your room & show you a measurable difference afterwards - doesn't mean I have improved anything
David Griesinger physicist who works in the field of sound and music - his research is here A lot of his later research is in the area of large halls but his early research is fundamental psychoacoustic research & applicable to all room acoustics, AFAIK.

One interesting thing you say "It is an extreme charachure to believe that all science has or must have hard and fast rules, particularly where human reactions, perceptions or activity are involved." Is this not what is at the core of this thread - what role does audio science have in what we hear. Not wishing to pick at old sores but did the Harmon speaker study not have this hard & fast rule established for a certain aspect of speakers?

Well, you can immediately try to jump in at the deep end, which is apparently where Greisinger is. I am not interested enough in his self promotion and his emphasis on esoteric areas to want to delve into exactly what he has to say. And, my admittedly superficial reaction to his site is that it would interest few audiophiles.

I may not be typical, but maybe I am. I am a pragmatist who just wants whatever will improve the sound I hear in my room. I have found one such dramatic improvement that addresses room issues in a sophisticated, scientific way, but not from room treatments, which I have not been tempted to try. Instead, I use Dirac Live EQ on my music PC and no treatments, after having used Audyssey MultEQ XT/32 with Audyssey Pro calibrations for a number of years previously.

I am not attempting to argue what is best: treatments or EQ? In my ideal, hit the lottery room, I would use both treatments and EQ, which is actually what many professional acousticians do these days for Music/Home Theater Rooms. I think the pure treatment path is fraught with many pitfalls and high cost, as well as inflexibility to system or even furniture rearrangements. Read Mike Lavigne's thread in this forum about the travails in dealing with just passive acoustic treatments in his room. Fortunately, he thinks he has now gotten it "right".

It is possible that DSP EQ, good as it is potentially, is not as "perfect" as passive treatments along with comprehensive measurements by a professional acoustician. DSP EQ requires digital PCM sources, for one thing, making analog lovers cringe, no doubt. But, for those of us preferring digital playback, it is a godsend. It is far easier to install, do comparative on/off assessments, tweak target curves or recalibrate to handle changes to the room or system. There are also no tampons in the room, ha ha, affecting WAF, taking space or just being ugly. EQ is also potentially much less costly than passive treatments. Passive treatments also have problems much below 100 Hz, which is where most room correction is usually always needed. Hardly any off the shelf acoustic treatments are effective below that because they need to be huge to handle the long wavelengths involved. And, DSP EQ is usually a straightforward DIY install that many typical audiophiles have learned to do themselves.

And, it works exceptionally well. Most all my audiophile friends have also gone this EQ route after hearing my system. We are talking systems in the $50-$100k MSRP range. We all consider it a major sonic breakthrough that we would not be without, though we mostly use different tools for our EQ.

So, I strongly recommend to anyone wanting to get their feet wet in addressing room acoustics that they experiment with EQ first, if they can live with the PCM conversion issue. I have found that it makes very large, no brainer improvements to the sound of one's system. As I said, I am not tempted myself to go further with this into passive treatments unless I could devote big financial resources to them.

I see no hard and fast rule in the Harman speaker studies. I see only findings and recommendations based on the data obtained in summary and on average from numerous human test subjects. Admittedly, the studies are scientifically well done and convincing, but I do not feel compelled to discard my old speakers.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

John,

Acoustics is even more of an art than science, the real pros know that and probably why there's no consensus. Some here think that a mic, some software and a bunch of giant tampons will address everything and since that won't cut it, let's apply some digital Eq! Avery Fisher Hall at Lincoln center is great example of where science failed miserably. Hundreds of $millions later and its still crap! Just google the history of this hall, its unbelievable. Here are a few articles, go to the Acoustic section


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avery_Fisher_Hall

http://memim.com/avery-fisher-hall.html

Nice history here;

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~dtl/89S/restrict/AFH/afh.html

And it looks another NY Hall is suffering from the science too, here's an excerpt from this article which imo applies across the board here;

"But it also takes something away. After a while you stop marveling at how crisp the textures are and start wondering whether listening to music really should feel like examining insect parts under a microscope. Probably not. A lot of music simply doesn’t lend itself to this kind of close-up peering. It demands at least the hint of mystery and allure that a hall’s natural resonance ought to provide."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/arts/music/02tully.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I'll let the armchair scientists get on with their… whatever!

david

As microstrip pointed out, big rooms and specifically large performance venues are quite different from small, typical listening rooms. Yes, some of the acoustic theory is similar, but measurement and treatments are dramatically different. As if small room acoustics was not complex enough, large performance space issues are way,way more so. Which is why there have been so many large scale failures in famous halls, like Avery Fisher Hall, which BTW is to be renamed at some point, I understand. Disney Hall in LA is a more recent disaster.

Fortunately, home listening room acoustics has developed and improved considerably in spite of these fiascos. Both passive treatments and DSP EQ seem to be growing their niche among audiophiles rather nicely. I agree, we want to hear the natural resonance of the performance venue, not the listening room. I have been quite happy for the last 8 years achieving just that, as I say happily as a classical music listener who goes to many live concerts.

 

[amirm]

Saw this video on another forum. Very interesting demo of how different things sound depending upon the space it is in.

[video=vimeo;132408379]https://vimeo.com/132408379[/video]

Fun and educational. Shows the value of room reflections.

 

[Bobvin]

As I said, I am not tempted myself to go further with this into passive treatments unless I could devote big financial resources to them.

Perhaps my question better suited to a room correction thread, but where to you draw the line at "big" financial resources. In my experience in this hobby, and information gathered from this and other forums, I believe the room is as nearly as important as the speakers when the goal is getting the utmost from our systems. In my prior room up in Seattle area, I probably invested ~$16-20K in room treatments (tube traps, base traps, diffusion), and enjoyed much improvement though it was trial and error and not measured performance via REW or the like. Considering I've invested more than twice that in speakers and have good quality upstream components, I tend to think of "the room" as another component. Considering cables (power and signal) and isolation, why would I not consider getting the room dialed in as equally important? And, aside from the hassle of construction, removing sheet-rock and putting up some fabric walls with whatever is recommended by the acoutician behind the fabric does not seem [to me] a big financial outlay given all the other components in my system. (The fabric wall also allows one to tweak what is behind it as necessary.)

Granted, not everyone has the luxury of a dedicated space. I understand that, and if you're willing to play primarily in the digital arena perhaps EQ gear is a viable option. As for me, the price paid for the acoustician just isn't that much, though adding the recommended treatment is where costs will come in. In my case, I wanted to remodel the space anyway, it just didn't suit how we were using the room. And in keeping the spirit of the thread, from what I have learned about Dr. Bonnie @ SoundSense and her methods, I expect her use of science will provide great results. I expect there are other acousticians who could also provide suggestions that would result in measurable improvements. The proof, of course, will be in the putting.

 

[jkeny]

I know his site isn't well organised into categories & his main research is focussed on large & small halls but he also has contributed towards home listening rooms "Speaker placement, externalization, and envelopment in home listening rooms"
And also has quiet a few contributions to surround sound reproduction.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Perhaps my question better suited to a room correction thread, but where to you draw the line at "big" financial resources. In my experience in this hobby, and information gathered from this and other forums, I believe the room is as nearly as important as the speakers when the goal is getting the utmost from our systems. In my prior room up in Seattle area, I probably invested ~$16-20K in room treatments (tube traps, base traps, diffusion), and enjoyed much improvement though it was trial and error and not measured performance via REW or the like. Considering I've invested more than twice that in speakers and have good quality upstream components, I tend to think of "the room" as another component. Considering cables (power and signal) and isolation, why would I not consider getting the room dialed in as equally important? And, aside from the hassle of construction, removing sheet-rock and putting up some fabric walls with whatever is recommended by the acoutician behind the fabric does not seem [to me] a big financial outlay given all the other components in my system. (The fabric wall also allows one to tweak what is behind it as necessary.)

Granted, not everyone has the luxury of a dedicated space. I understand that, and if you're willing to play primarily in the digital arena perhaps EQ gear is a viable option. As for me, the price paid for the acoustician just isn't that much, though adding the recommended treatment is where costs will come in. In my case, I wanted to remodel the space anyway, it just didn't suit how we were using the room. And in keeping the spirit of the thread, from what I have learned about Dr. Bonnie @ SoundSense and her methods, I expect her use of science will provide great results. I expect there are other acousticians who could also provide suggestions that would result in measurable improvements. The proof, of course, will be in the putting.

I think you are right that the room is another component in the system. I personally would never treat my room myself. I think it requires way more art and science than I know or am willing to take the time with in order to do it properly.

Your numbers give some perspective to the cost of professional treatments. It would be hard for someone to commit to that before hearing the final results. It is not like borrowing a component from your local dealer, which you can return. So, you have to believe. That is one advantage to EQ. It is either just software or an electronics box to swap into the system.

Measurement is the key, either way. I am glad that you have an acoustician to do that, unlike your previous attempt. I suspect it will be much better as a result.

But, in answer to your question, why am I not going beyond EQ into treatments?

A.- it sounds really good right now.

B. - I doubt I will find it incrementally worth the considerable extra expenditure, plus WAF, plus I do not know how much longer I will be living here.

My first experience with EQ 8 years ago was inexpensive and returnable if I was not satisfied. I have tried a lot of things, major upgrades etc. over many decades. Nothing in my experience has come close in terms of the performance boost for the dollar invested.

 

[Al M.]

I think you are right that the room is another component in the system. I personally would never treat my room myself. I think it requires way more art and science than I know or am willing to take the time with in order to do it properly.

Your numbers give some perspective to the cost of professional treatments. It would be hard for someone to commit to that before hearing the final results. It is not like borrowing a component from your local dealer, which you can return. So, you have to believe.

My first room treatment package, with 2 ASC tube traps and 11 sound panels, including shipping, was two and a half grand. What's that in many systems? A set of speaker cables? But it completely transformed my system.

One really good investment with lots of return for the money was also a beautiful (WAF through the roof!) natural-fiber carpet (wool) from the local carpet store for the space behind my speakers, size 9 x 12 feet. Cost: 500 dollars.