Robert Harleys 'listening room

[Bobvin]

Yeah, agreed. I think what some are missing is that with a good room acoustically, you just need refinements to get good sound from any speaker.

It's really about placement of listening chair and speakers and them tackling the first reflection points. Not much else has to change.

In my room, left, right and rear walls have custom BAD panels, with a different drilling pattern centered on ear height all around the room. The different ear height pattern was a result of Bonnie incorporating some resent research into her algorithm. The drilling patterns were generated by her modeling and drilled on-site. (What a mess that was!)

 

[Another Johnson]

Everyone loved Dick Olsher. He was frank, pragmatic, and opinionated.

If you ever saw his listening room, you would wonder about how what he was hearing was related to what you would hear.

My apologies to Mr Olsher for writing in the past tense. He is alive and kicking.

When I wrote that line, I was thinking of Art Dudley.

In any event, rooms are personal spaces, and I think most people who are bold enough to write reviews, want to be helpful. And they do have confidence in their ability to discern differences and express them to an audience.

Reviews are fun to read. Will RH’s new room help him define observations that are more relevant to Everyman? I think it will.

FWIW, there were a number of things he did in his room construction that might have more positive effects than he was trying to achieve. For example, all of that constrained layer damping of studs and drywall fastening will also provide great sealing as might have been accomplished with caulking. A staggered stud approach might have also been considered, or the room within a room approach might have been worthwhile.

I speculate that since he was using 5.5” ripped plywood strips to build his damped studs, that he used 2x6 construction, which was also good.

When I designed and built my room, I went with 2x6 on 16” centers, I used rock wool as the insulation material, and I had everything caulked with fire proof caulking to get the best possible seal. I used heavy, weatherstripped exterior grade doors and thresholds, which were probably cheaper than his beautiful magnetically sealed doors. Like him, I added a door to a staging area in the adjacent garage, for easy movement of equipment that might require riggers for installation. I made my own acoustic absorbers from industrial foams ordered from a foam factory that specializes in custom foam panels and columns. Like his, mine can be moved around as needed for best effect.

RH’s room is his bucket list room. I learned some things from his video, and I’d love to hear my system in his space.

 

[Carlos269]

Carlos, what alternative would you suggest? I agree that your videos sound good. You do not appear to have paid much attention to the room or audio file acoustic treatments, though I may be mistaken. I once went down the path of TubeTraps. Based on your experience, could you talk a bit about the approach you follow?

Peter,
I’m glad that you asked. The key to good sound is to listen in the near field and on axis, although with line-array speakers such as my Wisdom Audio Adrenaline Rush this is not a requirement. By listening in the near field and on axis, your ears are listening to direct sound and any reflections and room contributions are arbitrated by your brain’s auditory system. It is really as simple as that. The whole room acoustics movement and bespoke engineered rooms are more about vanity than substance.At the end of the day it is the results that matter and as you say I have some outstanding sounding systems without any room treatments or regards of that nature.

It is all about the position and polar radiation pattern of the speakers relative to the listening position. If you recall, in the old days, a polar radiation pattern was included with the speakers, analogous to the polar response pattern of a microphone.

I think what many miss here is that most audiophiles are not qualified to determine the correct location of room treatments. Next time someone tells you that they placed room treatments to address first reflections, ask them how they determined those locations on the side walls and for them to show you the calculations or at least the formulas and methodology that were used and you will come away from that conversation feeling the very same way how I feel about this trend.

 

[Another Johnson]

Since we’re sharing a bit about room builds, I thought I would share my objectives specific to my own space.

First, I was replacing the room at the house from which we’d downsized. My best rooms over the years have been rooms where the listening position gets a clear and dominant direct field from the speakers.

When I was running Martin Logan stat panels, I liked the idea of a slight amount of reflection off the front wall, but after moving away from dipoles, I’ve mitigated this.

So in my more recent rooms, I’ve made it a point to control front wall reflections.
I’ve always used diffusion and diffraction more prominently than absorption for other walls. Lots of book cases with books, and with albums and CDs block formation of standing waves by their irregular surfaces. Nevertheless, strategically placed absorbers can produce an unexpectedly significant effect that can best be determined by trial and error.

In the old house I’d built my room in an outbuilding, so I never had to be concerned about disturbing others. The new room is contiguous with the rest of the new house, so it was important to get as much wall transmission loss as possible. I can play music VERY loud and it is inaudible in the nearby rooms. As important, others can watch TV or play their own music, and I can’t hear them.

Another important factor in my sound isolation design was to put the new room on its own exclusive HVAC system. There is no common ductwork that could allow sound from my room to get into the other HVAC systems here. The HVAC system ducting is designed to keep the listening position outside of the zones where air flow noise is audible. The mechanical equipment is not audible in the room either.

I ran into an unexpected electrical issue .., the ARC Ref 250 SE amps do not like the 20 amp AFCI breakers required by code. ARC was aware of this, and I wish they had shared it with me. It took some special effort to sort this out safely.

I went with a 10’ ceiling because, with my expected listening position and speakers, my sense from past rooms is that ceiling first reflections are behind me. I could add some strategic absorption to the ceiling, but I haven’t felt it to be necessary.

When music doesn’t sound “right” to me, it’s nearly always due to problems with streaming sources. For example, this week I was disappointed with the quality of some hi res performances that had been better earlier. The degradation was in my Qobuz, Roon Nucleus, Rossini stream. So I tried Amazon, BluOS, Bluesound Node, McIntosh MDA200 … and it sounded back to great. My speculation is that either Qobuz or Roon were at the root of the degradation. But this comes and goes randomly, and seems to have its origin on the other side of my gateway. Vinyl and CD NEVER disappoint.

 

[microstrip]

Lets assume the room is large and built to golden ratio dimensions. Lets assume considerable attention to detail, bass attenuation, RT60, etc. Lets assume a combination diffusion / absorption (like BAD panels) exist on the walls. The room without speakers retains some liveliness yet speech is clear and articulate. A hand clap sounds natural but there is no ringing.

Given these assumptions, what would you anticipate needs to be done to get the most out of a dipole like Alsyvox (or Maggie) vs. the M9s, or an omni-directional like MBL or Bayz? How specifically should a room be designed differently for these speakers?

I have heard it suggested an engineered solution isn’t worth it (for sure not all acoustic engineers are created equal) because the design fails to account for the particular speaker. Because I have experience now with several speaker topologies I am keen to understand how the above described room would be more favorable to one topology vs another.

In order to optimize I think that some changes would be mandatory. First in the bass. Dipoles suffer from bass dips caused by cancellation due to reflection of the out of phase back wave, boxes from the in phase bass reflection. The best way to deal with this kind of dips is absorption, that should be tuned for the type of speakers .

Stereo reflection from the walls is critical to create soundstage imaging and the sense of enveloping, the weak points of stereo. Speakers with very different pattern radiations will need different absorption and diffusion.

The parameters we love to nominate, such as RT60 and bass waterfalls are extremely limited in our rooms in terms of correlation with absolute sound quality of a room - they aim at large rooms where we have a large number of reflections and real diffusion. In fact in our typical rooms, most of the treatment must be empirically done by listening and measurements with a defined speaker in place. Yes, relative measurements should be used for assistance during the work.

Please note that I am addressing top speakers with high resolution and able to high performance in a wide bandwidth with a large number of recordings of different types - I have not listened to the M9, but can easily admit that it is able of the level of performance of the WAMM, that I have experience. I will note that you are comparing a top BMW with a Volkswagen in your list of speakers - something that spoils your experience. I expect that the M9 will be much more responsive to room treatments and limitations than the other speaker you refer.

 

[Bobvin]

In order to optimize I think that some changes would be mandatory. First in the bass. Dipoles suffer from bass dips caused by cancellation due to reflection of the out of phase back wave, boxes from the in phase bass reflection. The best way to deal with this kind of dips is absorption, that should be tuned for the type of speakers .

Stereo reflection from the walls is critical to create soundstage imaging and the sense of enveloping, the weak points of stereo. Speakers with very different pattern radiations will need different absorption and diffusion.

The parameters we love to nominate, such as RT60 and bass waterfalls are extremely limited in our rooms in terms of correlation with absolute sound quality of a room - they aim at large rooms where we have a large number of reflections and real diffusion. In fact in our typical rooms, most of the treatment must be empirically done by listening and measurements with a defined speaker in place. Yes, relative measurements should be used for assistance during the work.

Please note that I am addressing top speakers with high resolution and able to high performance in a wide bandwidth with a large number of recordings of different types - I have not listened to the M9, but can easily admit that it is able of the level of performance of the WAMM, that I have experience. I will note that you are comparing a top BMW with a Volkswagen in your list of speakers - something that spoils your experience. I expect that the M9 will be much more responsive to room treatments and limitations than the other speaker you refer.

With the Alsyvox in my room (dipole), and with the Diesis Roma (horn / open baffle hybrid), I do note a shallow dip in bass centered around 100hz (with both at similar distance from front wall.) The shallow dip is not present with the Bayz (ported & omni-directional design). Moving the dipoles into the room vs toward front wall — would you expect the frequency where the dip occurs to change or is this a room dependent variable?

None of the speakers I have are lacking in any way creating a realistic stereo image and enveloping soundstage. But in my case the ‘treatment’ covers the full wall and would apply evenly regardless of speaker position.

Which of Alsyvox, Bayz, or Diesis are you calling the VW? (I only mentioned Maggies as another dipole planer — I’ve never had them in my room.) I would say the Alsyvox Rafello is competing easily with top Wilson or Magico — matters of taste and personal preference at these lofty levels.

 

[microstrip]

With the Alsyvox in my room (dipole), and with the Diesis Roma (horn / open baffle hybrid), I do note a shallow dip in bass centered around 100hz (with both at similar distance from front wall.) The shallow dip is not present with the Bayz (ported & omni-directional design). Moving the dipoles into the room vs toward front wall — would you expect the frequency where the dip occurs to change or is this a room dependent variable?

Yes, frequency should depend on distance from the front wall.

None of the speakers I have are lacking in any way creating a realistic stereo image and enveloping soundstage. But in my case the ‘treatment’ covers the full wall and would apply evenly regardless of speaker position.

We only find what we are lacking when we experience something better. The day I introduced four huge tuned bass traps in my room that canceled a dip I found real improvements all over the bandwidth, not particularly in the bass.

Which of Alsyvox, Bayz, or Diesis are you calling the VW? (I only mentioned Maggies as another dipole planer — I’ve never had them in my room.) I would say the Alsyvox Rafello is competing easily with top Wilson or Magico — matters of taste and personal preference at these lofty levels.

I do not have experience with the Alsyvox Rafello - if it "competes" with the Magico M9 or the WAMM it is a real miracle. IMO a linear source planar can never compete with a speaker having dome tweeters and large box speakers - they aim at different aspects of stereo. We can't over rule physics. I like a lot my current SoundLabs but I know about their limitations.

 

[Gregadd]

Given the price one would presume the WAMM and M9 have few peers,. I would proffer the Michael Angelo would be a better comparison.Ironically I think the dome tyweeter and the box would be thier Achiles heel. The bipolar would be more room dependent.
That would be a showdown on the level of a Clint Eastwood Western.

 

[Bobvin]

Ported box speaker, sealed box speaker, dipole planer, throw in a top horn system — a shootout for the current age of hi-fi.

I’d like it to be in a room larger than Harley’s 17’ wide. One room, maybe several respected (?) reviewers from around the globe. Each guy fly independently for a couple days listening, swap speakers and repeat. Done over the course of several months, with each summarizing what they perceive the strengths (and weaknesses) of each. Possibly swapping out electronics too, SS and tube amplification.

Would there be a clear winner — I doubt there would be a consensus. Matters of preference and taste. It would be instructive to know what they do agree on.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ported box speaker, sealed box speaker, dipole planer, throw in a top horn system — a shootout for the current age of hi-fi.

Would there be a clear winner — I doubt there would be a consensus. Matters of preference and taste.

+1

 

[adyc]

.The parameters we love to nominate, such as RT60 and bass waterfalls are extremely limited in our rooms in terms of correlation with absolute sound quality of a room - they aim at large rooms where we have a large number of reflections and real diffusion. In fact in our typical rooms, most of the treatment must be empirically done by listening and measurements with a defined speaker in place. Yes, relative measurements should be used for assistance during the work.

Can I ask what is your definition of large room?

 

[Gregadd]

Ported box speaker, sealed box speaker, dipole planer, throw in a top horn system — a shootout for the current age of hi-fi.

I’d like it to be in a room larger than Harley’s 17’ wide. One room, maybe several respected (?) reviewers from around the globe. Each guy fly independently for a couple days listening, swap speakers and repeat. Done over the course of several months, with each summarizing what they perceive the strengths (and weaknesses) of each. Possibly swapping out electronics too, SS and tube amplification.

Would there be a clear winner — I doubt there would be a consensus. Matters of preference and taste. It would be instructive to know what they do agree on.

Or maybe even the MBLomni.

 

[Lee]

Ported box speaker, sealed box speaker, dipole planer, throw in a top horn system — a shootout for the current age of hi-fi.

I’d like it to be in a room larger than Harley’s 17’ wide. One room, maybe several respected (?) reviewers from around the globe. Each guy fly independently for a couple days listening, swap speakers and repeat. Done over the course of several months, with each summarizing what they perceive the strengths (and weaknesses) of each. Possibly swapping out electronics too, SS and tube amplification.

Would there be a clear winner — I doubt there would be a consensus. Matters of preference and taste. It would be instructive to know what they do agree on.

It might be like the old audiophile joke, “If you ask ten audiophiles for a recommendation, you get 14 answers.”

 

[Kingrex]

I like your room Bob. And it does sound good. But it does scare me to think of designing a room with acoustic treatments built into the walls. What if they are too much.

And you do have a curtain you pull around the back so you do have a type of mobile absorber.

 

[Bobvin]

Can I ask what is your definition of large room?

Large enough width so a big speaker can fit with room between them and room from the sidewalls, so 20+ ft width, 30 ft long, 12 ft high (whatever the magic ratio is along those dimensions.) Room to breathe, but still intimate.

 

[Jep]

Large enough width so a big speaker can fit with room between them and room from the sidewalls, so 20+ ft width, 30 ft long, 12 ft high (whatever the magic ratio is along those dimensions.) Room to breathe, but still intimate.

Your room Bob is maybe/probably the most beautiful listening room I have ever seen, must be fantastic to listen there.

JP

 

[Rhapsody]

I've heard Bob's room with three different speakers (Alsyvox, Diesis and Bayz). Each speaker sounded as good in Bob's room as I have ever heard each speaker in other rooms. I've heard each speaker in maybe 10+ other rooms and environments.

Also MANY of the customers that Rhapsody sells to have rooms that are aesthetically pleasing as well as sounding good. If the customers have to give up an extra few % of sonics but have a very pleasing listening environment then so be it. The aesthetics of the rooms are usually equally as important as the sound. I personally am of this camp as well.

Bob's room is as nice of a listening environment that I have ever experienced.

Anyone that criticizes this room after being in it just happens to have a total different perspective on things and there is no problem with that. But it would never influence me or I think Bob, with regards to the inviting, warm and GREAT sounding room that he has orchestrated.

For those that criticize Bob's room without visiting it, I have no interest in that discussion. Life is way too short.

 

[Daverich4]

Oh nay nay… I am not of the opinion an engineered room is the final word. Every engineering solution is a set of compromises. But my room after it was gutted and rebuilt is far superior to what it was before. Compromises for sure, my budget was not unlimited. But I have also had four completely different speaker designs in the room (Wilson Alexia, Alsyvox Botticelli, Bayz Counterpoint, and Diesis Roma) and other than placement no additional tweaking necessary. And it is a warm and inviting environment. The engineer says she designs to make a room sound good, but feel good as well. And I wanted one that also looked nice (and pleased my wife!)

Fortunately for me, I am not obsessive and constantly fussing — I am about enjoying and sharing music. My room for sure sounds different from, for example, PeterA’s room. I don’t make any claim I have the “best” room or the answer to anything. But I will argue an engineered room can and should look like a warm and inviting space you’d want to spend time in. But those are my criteria, not everyone will agree.

I‘m not a photographer, so the picture below I needed to pump up the room lights to grab a morning photo — but no way I’d give up my view to chase the last degree of sonic “perfection”. Others feel differently I’m sure.

View attachment 112211

Some time ago you posted a video of snow falling outside that window. If I remember correctly, the music you chose to accompany the video was in response to losing a family member. The beauty and emotion of that scene makes me think that if I’d been there it would have been to watch in silence in spite of the amazing source of music that you have.

 

[microstrip]

Can I ask what is your definition of large room?

In this particular context - discussing RT60 - I would assume something as 15m x 20 m. But these parameters were developed to characterize much larger spaces, such as concert halls.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Next time someone tells you that they placed room treatments to address first reflections, ask them how they determined those locations on the side walls and for them to show you the calculations or at least the formulas and methodology that were used and you will come away from that conversation feeling the very same way how I feel about this trend.

M