Robert Harleys 'listening room

[Another Johnson]

Jim had me move a mirror along until we found the first reflection point. We put in two GIK panels on the left and right, added some to the front wall, and sound improved considerably.

It is surprising how little tweaking may be enough. It just has to be in the right spot.

 

[PeterA]

Jim had me move a mirror along until we found the first reflection point. We put in two GIK panels on the left and right, added some to the front wall, and sound improved considerably.

Lee, Jim and I did the same when he visited me a decade ago. We moved the mirror until we saw the reflection of the tweeter in the mirror from the main listening seat. I always wondered how various speakers with their different dispersion patterns would affect this method. You are capturing a frequency or small range, but what about the amplitude and frequency right before or after that mirror location? How big does the absorption or diffusion panel need to be? The sound certainly changes, but what happens to the reflections bouncing around near the sidewall treatment? I would think it depends a lot on the particular speaker design, and how the speaker is oriented toward the listener.

I played around a lot with toe-in angles and ultimately aimed my old cone/sealed cabinet speakers straight ahead and took away the audiophile treatment at the first reflection points. It sounded more natural to me. It is a personal thing and one chooses what sounds best to the listener.

 

[Lee]

Lee, Jim and I did the same when he visited me a decade ago. We moved the mirror until we saw the reflection of the tweeter in the mirror from the main listening seat. I always wondered how various speakers with their different dispersion patterns would affect this method. You are capturing a frequency or small range, but what about the amplitude and frequency right before or after that mirror location? How big does the absorption or diffusion panel need to be? The sound certainly changes, but what happens to the reflections bouncing around near the sidewall treatment? I would think it depends a lot on the particular speaker design, and how the speaker is oriented toward the listener.

I played around a lot with toe-in angles and ultimately aimed my old cone/sealed cabinet speakers straight ahead and took away the audiophile treatment at the first reflection points. It sounded more natural to me. It is a personal thing and one chooses what sounds best to the listener.

We used a GIK panel that was half absorptive and half reflective.

 

[Kingrex]

Lee, Jim and I did the same when he visited me a decade ago. We moved the mirror until we saw the reflection of the tweeter in the mirror from the main listening seat. I always wondered how various speakers with their different dispersion patterns would affect this method. You are capturing a frequency or small range, but what about the amplitude and frequency right before or after that mirror location? How big does the absorption or diffusion panel need to be? The sound certainly changes, but what happens to the reflections bouncing around near the sidewall treatment? I would think it depends a lot on the particular speaker design, and how the speaker is oriented toward the listener.

I think this is what the double drywall system is supposed to help address. That wave bounching forever in the room. Its suppose to dissipate its energy quickly . I don't know how much of this applies to mid and high frequency.

I have heard paint is reflective. Natural wood less so. Felt on surfaces can tame high frequency reflections.

Tuning a room to perfection seems to be an endeavor. Its stumbling in the dark if you have never done it. If you have, you probably never want to do it again.

 

[microstrip]

It is surprising how little tweaking may be enough. It just has to be in the right spot.

It depends a lot on room dimensions, speaker dispersion and placement - all of them affect the timing of the first reflections. And surely depend on the listener preference.

Again, we should not expect to have cookbook type firm rules in this hobby, particularly as we disagree a lot on semantics. BTW, IMO if we want to understand and use Jim Smith rules we should read the whole book, not just a few clues.

 

[PeterA]

Again, we should not expect to have cookbook type firm rules in this hobby, particularly as we disagree a lot on semantics. BTW, IMO if we want to understand and use Jim Smith rules we should read the whole book, not just a few clues.

I read the first book in its entirety and experimented with his advice before I hired him. I also contributed to his Kickstarter campaign for his second book and I am waiting for that to be published.

 

[microstrip]

I read the first book in its entirety and experimented with his advice before I hired him. I also contributed to his Kickstarter campaign for his second book and I am waiting for that to be published.

Also waiting for it!

 

[Lee]

The one big takeaway I have had on these room treatments is that you can easily overdo it and many treatment manufacturers want you to overdo it for financial reasons.

There is a stereo dealer I visit regularly that has added so much treatment that the system sounds dull and lifeless even though the equipment is quite good.

 

[Carlos269]

The one big takeaway I have had on these room treatments is that you can easily overdo it and many treatment manufacturers want you to overdo it for financial reasons.

There is a stereo dealer I visit regularly that has added so much treatment that the system sounds dull and lifeless even though the equipment is quite good.

I agree with your observation that many rooms are designed and treated as if they were recording spaces instead of listening rooms. There is usually an over abundance of unnecessary adsorption and dampening material implemented.

I don’t want to get Bob NYC pissed off but I’m not sure if any of you caught what the Audiophile Junkie said on the video as he walked into the M9 show room in Dallas: “Oh Wow, This Room Is Dead”. I get that it’s in a commercial space and the goal is to keep the outside noise out as well as insulate the inside sound but overly done it can be an issue.

You want the room to be somewhat lively as those early reflections provide ambiance and intimacy.

Typical domestic home rooms provide a good balance in my experience, if the speakers and listening positions are oriented and setup properly.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I agree with your observation that many rooms are designed and treated as if they were recording spaces instead of listening rooms. There is usually an over abundance of unnecessary adsorption and dampening material implemented.

Room Acoustics

 

[adyc]

I think this is what the double drywall system is supposed to help address. That wave bounching forever in the room. Its suppose to dissipate its energy quickly . I don't know how much of this applies to mid and high frequency.
.

Not with mid or high frequency. These frequencies can hardly move the drywalls. More appropriate considerations for these frequencies are coefficients of absorption or reflection of the walls.

 

[Carlos269]

Room Acoustics

Thanks for the article, it’s a good read. Yes different objectives between studio control room acoustics, techniques and implementations which are unfortunately often used in the home environment, where they are not optimal or desired.

 

[JackD201]

Typical domestic home rooms provide a good balance in my experience, if the speakers and listening positions are oriented and setup properly.

Typical where? Architecture differs from region to region and a part of that is code that must be followed.

 

[pjwd]

I was talking to the people from ASC this week at the Pacific Audio Fest. I asked about bass absorption by the drywall. He said its not so much about bass absorption. Its about damping bass reflections. In a concrete room, the bass will bounce so long the sound becomes dull and smeared. The idea of the double drywall with a polymer between them is to have the wall take that energy from the bass that is exciting it, then dissipate the energy so it stops bouncing around the room. And to stop the wall system from vibrating and emitting its own energy to the room. So, its not like its an absorber. Not in the sense of sucking down a peak of energy. Its more a way to keep the wall itself from becoming source of sound and to keep the bass from bouncing from one wall to another to another to another.

Thats interesting KR,
I would say if its not reflecting its absorbing !.. I see these sprung wall systems primarily as preventing structure born sound into adjacent rooms and from exterior into the room. I have no doubt that a highly spec'd and controlled system would have a predictable result but most would be very hit and miss regarding performance. In Bobvins room the system is clearly targeted to a substantial bass absorbtion result.
On top of that the varied perforated panels would look like an undulating surface to the sound making the space very diffusive but alive.. you would have an even reverbarent field. ( I bet its a great room to just converse in) It is a good strategy to create a very flexible space regarding speaker and chair positions. It also deals with the size issue that PeterA quite correctly refers to regarding first relection treatment area as the complete wall is a diffuser.

It shows the benifit of hiring a specialist in this particular field.

Cheers
Phil

 

[Carlos269]

Typical where? Architecture differs from region to region and a part of that is code that must be followed.

You are correct. It is very true that construction of houses varies to a high degree around the world. If you are in a region where the walls are made at one extreme of concrete or at another extreme of single layer non-rigid material then obviously my comments do not apply.

 

[microstrip]

Room Acoustics

Or simply the FLoyd Toole book. The subject is well addressed, with proper detail.

 

[Audiohertz2]

What I don’t understand fully is why such a “well engineered” room needs further sound attenuation absorbers / diffusors. In my opinion the Noxon approach is difficient. Sure, the room is isolated and the walls don’t ring, but after such expense and consideration of details adding ugly panels to the room seems wrong to me. You mean I have to move the absorber/diffusor out of the way to find my LP or CD, are you kidding me?

One of the primary goals of my own room design was never having to look at recording studio sound attenuation add-ons. Or, look for example at the new Magico showroom, sure the walls look more like a recording studio, but with an aesthetic that produces an overall harmonious gestalt.

The Harley room in no way reflects the aesthetic of his beautiful southwestern adobe style home. I personally would want to bring that design aesthetic into my room, and I’d for sure want to look out on nature while listening. A missed opportunity IMHO. Building a room from scratch means I have the ability to include those details in the planning phase.

You have a beautiful room Bob and do agree with you somewhat . Hartley’s back ground is recording studios , this is very obvious in how his room was tackled, i dont agree with all of it but many things like room dimensions , the door mods and overlapping drywall is a necessity if using drywall ..!



Regards

 

[Audiohertz2]

I too am a bit confused somewhat to the criticism. Robert had full design authority for a dedicated enclosed space (not a "shared" space) and he made it to his own spec (acoustically, aesthetically). To say that it is a missed opportunity is pretty subjective and a bit much I'd say. I'd also say his construction is way beyond most. Having a nice looking room (subjective) with some treatment hidden is great, but not at all the same as this type of project.

I think its an awesome looking space and if he wanted the acoustics built in / hidden, I'm sure he would have done so. His end goal may not have been aesthetically neutral living room look - whatever that means.

Agree ,

Hartley reviews products so may require acoustic panels movable as not all speakers will favor rooms being treated , so removable panels makes sense ..!


Regards

 

[Kingrex]

Robert may want to review room treatments since he seems passionate about the subject. If his room had built in treatments, he could not do as such.

 

[adrianywu]

Thanks for the article, it’s a good read. Yes different objectives between studio control room acoustics, techniques and implementations which are unfortunately often used in the home environment, where they are not optimal or desired.

I have a similar experience as the author of the article. A recording engineering from Germany came to visit, and he brought with him his latest CD of Bach pieces played on a piano. After playing some tracks on my system, he told me that the sound was exactly the way he heard it in his studio, so he concluded my system was tonally accurate. In fact, the acoustic architect who designed my room usually designs recording studios and concert halls. I am not sure whether sounding like a studio is a good thing or not for home audio, but it is useful for evaluating my own recordings.