Robert Harleys 'listening room

[Mike Lavigne]

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.

the author of the article designed my room. although i have made some changes to my room since it was built 19 years ago, they were changes the designer anticipated might be done as i lived with it. he figured he would make it very lively, and over-spec'd bass trapping. the live ness i've pretty much retained, the bass trapping has mostly been closed up. but the bones of the room have been very much to my personal liking.

i was lucky to have a contractor who i had worked with on a number of commercial projects, who built the room structurally exactly as it had been designed, and worked closely with the designer.

 

[adrianywu]

the author of the article designed my room. although i have made some changes to my room since it was built 19 years ago, they were changes the designer anticipated might be done as i lived with it. he figured he would make it very lively, and over-spec'd bass trapping. the live ness i've pretty much retained, the bass trapping has mostly been closed up. but the bones of the room have been very much to my personal liking.

i was lucky to have a contractor who i had worked with on a number of commercial projects, who built the room structurally exactly as it had been designed, and worked closely with the designer.

When I was renovating my apartment, my room was built by the general contractor, supervised by the acoustics architect. The poor guy was pulling his hair out during the whole time, trying to explain how to do things and constantly on the lookout for mistakes. The ceiling was a source of consternation, since he wanted to avoid standing waves and designed a ceiling that slopes at different angles. It all came together in the end.

 

[Kingrex]

the author of the article designed my room. although i have made some changes to my room since it was built 19 years ago, they were changes the designer anticipated might be done as i lived with it. he figured he would make it very lively, and over-spec'd bass trapping. the live ness i've pretty much retained, the bass trapping has mostly been closed up. but the bones of the room have been very much to my personal liking.

I saw a very familiar chair in the story about your room. And what a lonely rack. Only one with 4 or so pieces of equipment.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I saw a very familiar chair in the story about your room.

that chair was then only 5 years old. now it's a relic.

And what a lonely rack. Only one with 4 or so pieces of equipment.

it was 19 years ago. prior to darTZeel, used a passive Placette preamp, with Tenor Hybrid amps and Kharma Exquisite 1D's.

 

[stehno]

So much to be said here so I’ll go with the same strategy the proverbial chicken used when laying an egg in the middle of the road i.e. lay it on the line and do it quickly.

I’m curious if anybody, especially those with or even those enamored by custom rooms and/or custom acoustic treatments, has ever considered the possibility that such things are really just addressing the effects that actually have little/no influence on the cause(s)?

Anybody know what the results always are when one puts the effects as a target on the wall instead of a cause? If so, then how is chasing the effects all that much different from chasing windmills?

Hopefully nobody would argue that anything done at the mechanical/acoustical output downstream can in no way impact or influence the compromised fidelity of the electrical input signal upstream (the primary cause). If true, then even the quality of the speaker/room interface (the secondary cause) is limited by the primary cause upstream. Note that “the room” ought not be confused with the speaker/room interface.

This is not to say that a superior custom room is no better sounding than a reasonably standard room but what I am saying is such differences are quite limited at best and nowhere near the huge gains as many would have us believe. Nor is this to say that an empty room void of carpeting/pad and void of any furnishings would suffice. Just as computer desktop and smartphone speakers are no substitute for a quality set of headphones.

More importantly, if there are differences between a custom and standard room, then sufficiently addressing the causes should easily more than compensate for most if not all of either room’s acoustic deficiencies/anomalies – of which both will have.

For example. I only focus on the causes knowing that ultimately the causes determine the bulk of the effects. Here’s an in-room video taken in my former 12’ x 21’ x 8’ (think shoebox) kitchen where the only things custom are my cryo-treated Romex and cryo-treated audio-grade wall-outlets. IOW, because I only focus on causes, I’ve nothing but a barely reasonable, barely standard-constructed shoebox, minimally furnished room. Thus implying I put little/no emphasis toward the room as it has remained essentially unchanged since my 2007 remodel, and my listening volume levels always approach live performance volume levels. An obvious recipe for failure, right? If the custom room types are right and I’m wrong.

Perhaps a custom room/custom treatment aficionado would care to point out some of my room’s deficiencies/anomalies? Better yet, maybe a custom room aficionado could share a video of a piece like this to better demonstrate how superior their custom room sounds vs how short of the mark my former kitchen is.

If custom rooms and/or treatments really make that big a difference, then my room’s acoustic deficiencies/anomalies should be many and rather obvious to all- especially at higher listening volumes, right? For example. Am I in need of bass traps, first-reflection treatments, do I need wall-panels with hundreds of varying-sized holes drilled according to some acoustician’s formula, etc.?

Anyway, since our goal is supposedly to make our rooms disappear, my question to those holding the room in such high esteem is... At what point in our playback config’s journey might the room actually disappear?

But my point being that all this fanfare about custom rooms/treatments is nothing more than chasing effects and as such is quite possibly the biggest decades-long preconceived narrative that deters/distracts many from sufficiently dealing with the genuine causes where genuine remedies are always found.

This is such an important topic, I’m gonna’ include a second video because often times bass can be often times a easy teller whether or not a room better yet a playback config is up to snuff. Give it the juice.

There, that was fairly quick.

 

[Ampexed]

While it is possible for a random living room to sound as good as a room constructed as a dedicated listening space, the odds are against it. Ratios of the walls/ceiling make huge differences in the bass as does irregular and/or non-parallel wall surfaces which a living room is unlikely to have, or at least unlikely to have which are placed for optimum acoustics. The problems which acoustic treatments cure are in fact cured - they are not a band-aid with the 'problem' still there. The problem is eliminated. A dedicated room is a sure bet - a random living room is a crap shoot.

While I'm skeptical with Harley's approach in some ways, I applaud the trouble he went through to accomplish it.

 

[Carlos269]

The problem is eliminated. A dedicated room is a sure bet

The world of idealism is a long distance from reality. Think about your statement above for a minute and then ask yourself what acoustic problem you are trying to eliminate. There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all dedicated engineered room; if there was every audiophile that could afford it would have the same room. Many simply don’t understand that it is not the room that causes issues, it is the combination of the room and excitation source. Without specifying the excitation source and its acoustical characteristics then it is impossible to design a solution, to be optimized.

It is very easy to throw out meaningless statements like the one above and unfortunately many uninformed audiophiles believe these urban legends. The real crap shoot is designing a room without taking into consideration the excitation source, the system; it is literally grasping in the dark and hoping for the best. Every loudspeaker design excites the room differently and without factoring that in, how do you even begin to design for optimization? The best you can do is follow “best practices”, which are very generic guidelines from varying philosophies that are random and far from aligned. You can spend your money and take a stab in the dark. If you really know about room acoustics then you realize that there is no “universal” “optimum room acoustics design”; how do you decide what is the best design for you?

Engineered rooms are a very expensive lesson to learn. More impactful results can be achieved with intelligent speakers/listening-position optimization without the need to was money for any other reason than for the sake of vanity.

 

[Ampexed]

The world of idealism is a long distance from reality. Think about your statement above for a minute and then ask yourself what acoustic problem you are trying to eliminate. There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all dedicated engineered room; if there was every audiophile that could afford it would have the same room. Many simply don’t understand that it is not the room that causes issues, it is the combination of the room and excitation source. Without specifying the excitation source and its acoustical characteristics then it is impossible to design a solution, to be optimized.

It is very easy to throw out meaningless statements like the one above and unfortunately many uninformed audiophiles believe these urban legends. The real crap shoot is designing a room without taking into consideration the excitation source, the system; it is literally grasping in the dark and hoping for the best. Every loudspeaker design excites the room differently and without factoring that in, how do you even begin to design for optimization? The best you can do is follow “best practices”, which are very generic guidelines from varying philosophies that are random and far from aligned. You can spend your money and take a stab in the dark. If you really know about room acoustics then you realize that there is no “universal” “optimum room acoustics design”; how do you decide what is the best design for you?

Engineered rooms are a very expensive lesson to learn. More impactful results can be achieved with intelligent speakers/listening-position optimization without the need to was money for any other reason than for the sake of vanity.

What part of what I said could be taken as 'all dedicated engineered rooms are one-size-fits-all'? I think you're being a bit obtuse here, possibly on purpose, but surely there is nothing which dictates that all dedicated rooms are the same. Mine (see profile link below) is vastly different than Harley's and I'm sure many other such dedicated rooms. You can move your 'excitation source' around all you wish, but if there are room dimensions which excite certain frequencies unduly because the room isn't suitable, then no amount of speaker-moving is going to cure it. Only a different room or acoustic treatment (within limits) will.

Really, this should not be controversial. A room which is built for purpose has a better chance of sounding good than one which is randomly built for some other purpose such as a living room. Locating the speakers intelligently in either a dedicated or non-dedicated room is a given - that much should be obvious.

 

[Carlos269]

What part of what I said could be taken as 'all dedicated engineered rooms are one-size-fits-all'? I think you're being a bit obtuse here, possibly on purpose, but surely there is nothing which dictates that all dedicated rooms are the same. Mine (see profile link below) is vastly different than Harley's and I'm sure many other such dedicated rooms. You can move your 'excitation source' around all you wish, but if there are room dimensions which excite certain frequencies unduly because the room isn't suitable, then no amount of speaker-moving is going to cure it. Only a different room or acoustic treatment (within limits) will.

Really, this should not be controversial. A room which is built for purpose has a better chance of sounding good than one which is randomly built for some other purpose such as a living room. Locating the speakers intelligently in either a dedicated or non-dedicated room is a given - that much should be obvious.

I led you here with my “obtuse” language for a reason. You misinterpreted my post, my point is that optimized, dedicated, or engineered listening rooms should not be all the same but ideally tailored for the speaker system’s radiation pattern and the system’s frequency response characteristics. If you want to do acoustics design correctly then all parameters must be taken into consideration but this never happens; the dedicated engineered rooms are designed without considerations for the speakers design. A purpose build room pushes the room modes to where they are less offensive but unless you size your room to be a concert hall or colosseum the bespoke room will still remain just a room with it’s on set of modes. Explain to me where the “eliminate” comes in? Do you not think that your or Robert Harley’s purpose built rooms have their own set of resonant modes within the audio frequency spectrum? What have you achieved besides moving the modes around?

 

[Another Johnson]

It is very hard to argue against the idea that a successful purpose built room will isolate the listener from noise originating in adjacent spaces. That feature alone makes the purpose built room worthwhile.

Then there’s the HVAC mechanical and distribution noise that can be more easily dealt with in a new installation. And the dedicated and properly conditioned electric service.

Ceiling height and general dimensions are easier to set on a blank page than in a remodel too.

These are all important factors that are more difficult to fix in a random existing space. Of course they might be fixed, but the more you fix, the more like a purpose built room the existing room becomes.

 

[Carlos269]

It is very hard to argue against the idea that a successful purpose built room will isolate the listener from noise originating in adjacent spaces. That feature alone makes the purpose built room worthwhile.

Then there’s the HVAC mechanical and distribution noise that can be more easily dealt with in a new installation. And the dedicated and properly conditioned electric service.

Ceiling height and general dimensions are easier to set on a blank page than in a remodel too.

These are all important factors that are more difficult to fix in a random existing space. Of course they might be fixed, but the more you fix, the more like a purpose built room the existing room becomes.

Very good. Yes certainly will not argue but I think that you can concede that when audiophiles set out to build their dream purposed built listening rooms those are not the features that are being target. It is the speaker room interaction that is the aim and main objective; and unfortunately the speakers are never even considered. Without addressing the reality of the acoustics issue that you are trying to fix how can you hope to hit the target and arrive at a successful solution? I hope that you can comprehend the point that I’m making here without losing sight of the goals by being distracted by other ancillary constructs.

 

[Ampexed]

I led you here with my “obtuse” language for a reason. You misinterpreted my post, my point is that optimized, dedicated, or engineered listening rooms should not be all the same but ideally tailored for the speaker system’s radiation pattern and the system’s frequency response characteristics. If you want to do acoustics design correctly then all parameters must be taken into consideration but this never happens; the dedicated engineered rooms are designed without considerations for the speakers design. A purpose build room pushes the room modes to where they are less offensive but unless you size your room to be a concert hall or colosseum the bespoke room will still remain just a room with it’s on set of modes. Explain to me where the “eliminate” comes in? Do you not think that your or Robert Harley’s purpose built rooms have their own set of resonant modes within the audio frequency spectrum? What have you achieved besides moving the modes around?

Taking into account the radiation pattern of the speakers is where localized acoustic treatment comes into play - absorption and diffusion - depending on if you have an omni-directional speaker, a bi-directional speaker, a di-directional speaker or a very directional speaker like full range horns (as in my situation). Proper ratios of room dimensions doesn't 'just move modes around' - they will reduce the severity of those modes and average them so that there is no dominant mode which is excited every time a certain bass note is struck. A properly designed room will sound good with any speaker type, and certainly has a better chance of doing so than a random living room of undefined shape/ratios.

Certainly a larger room is preferable to a smaller room, but in any event you don't want something like either a perfect cube or 2:1 room dimension ratios. The "Golden Radio" is the ideal if it can be achieved.

If you have achieved good performance from your room, it would be instructive if you posted a link to measurements in REW (.mdat file) you have taken. At least that would give an appreciation of your point of view in objective terms, and show how your speakers are interfacing with the room.

 

[Carlos269]

Taking into account the radiation pattern of the speakers is where localized acoustic treatment comes into play - absorption and diffusion - depending on if you have an omni-directional speaker, a bi-directional speaker, a di-directional speaker or a very directional speaker like full range horns (as in my situation). Proper ratios of room dimensions doesn't 'just move modes around' - they will reduce the severity of those modes and average them so that there is no dominant mode which is excited every time a certain bass note is struck. A properly designed room will sound good with any speaker type, and certainly has a better chance of doing so than a random living room of undefined shape/ratios.

Certainly a larger room is preferable to a smaller room, but in any event you don't want something like either a perfect cube or 2:1 room dimension ratios. The "Golden Radio" is the ideal if it can be achieved.

If you have achieved good performance from your room, it would be instructive if you posted a link to measurements in REW (.mdat file) you have taken. At least that would give an appreciation of your point of view in objective terms, and show how your speakers are interfacing with the room.

Please read my posts and you will soon become aware of my thoughts on room acoustics and how they correlate to achieving great sound reproduction. To avoid dragging this out, I will do better, here is a video of one of my systems along the long wall and of another along the short wall of my main listening room:

Please post a video of either song played back through your system so that I can assess the benefits and rewards of your purpose built room in comparison to my domestic listening room.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...speaking of dragging things out, are you measuring from the top or underneath?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Very good. Yes certainly will not argue but I think that you can concede that when audiophiles set out to build their dream purposed built listening rooms those are not the features that are being target.

certainly rooms can be designed specifically for large, tall, dynamic speakers. or like in Harley's case, designed to be adjustable for particular examples of dynamic speakers.

It is the speaker room interaction that is the aim and main objective; and unfortunately the speakers are never even considered.

and speakers can be designed with a particular room like that, in mind, too. my speaker design was targeted to generally work in my room.

Without addressing the reality of the acoustics issue that you are trying to fix how can you hope to hit the target and arrive at a successful solution? I hope that you can comprehend the point that I’m making here without losing sight of the goals by being distracted by other ancillary constructs.

dedicated room design acoustics are not all accidents or miracles.

 

[Ampexed]

Please read my posts and you will soon become aware of my thoughts on room acoustics and how they correlate to achieving great sound reproduction. To avoid dragging this out, I will do better, here is a video of one of my systems along the long wall and of another along the short wall of my main listening room:

Please post a video of either song played back through your system so that I can assess the benefits and rewards of your purpose built room in comparison to my domestic listening room.

Video sound doesn't tell us anything about how a system and room sounds and I think you know that. All I can hear is a tubby sounding echo. I also have better things to do than post videos which would not reveal anything in the slightest beyond how badly a microphone picks up sound in a room. I would be glad to furnish an .mdat file of my space if you want that. I would appreciate it if you posted objective measurements of your space so that things like RT-60, waterfall plots, impulse response, distortion and frequency response can be seen. An REW .mdat file is the best way to do this.

If you're not willing to do that, I'm afraid there's no point in continuing this.

 

[Carlos269]

Video sound doesn't tell us anything about how a system and room sounds and I think you know that. All I can hear is a tubby sounding echo. I also have better things to do than post videos which would not reveal anything in the slightest beyond how badly a microphone picks up sound in a room. I would be glad to furnish an .mdat file of my space if you want that. I would appreciate it if you posted objective measurements of your space so that things like RT-60, waterfall plots, impulse response, distortion and frequency response can be seen. An REW .mdat file is the best way to do this.

If you're not willing to do that, I'm afraid there's no point in continuing this.

I’m not sure why posting system videos scares the shit out of so many here. I have never measured my room. When you get a chance read my posts and you will realize that I have not concerned myself with my room. It is what it is and I have a setup protocol that I follow to minimize the room’s contributions to the sound that I hear when I’m listening. Early reflections contribute to sense of intimacy and room bass augmentation can increase perceived space and ambiance. It is all about optimization of the elements at play and not about paying someone and thinking that the room has been “eliminated”. I hope that I’m driving the point home.

 

[Ampexed]

I’m not sure why posting system videos scares the shit out of so many here. I have never measured my room. When you get a chance read my posts and you will realize that I have not concerned myself with my room. It is what it is and I have a setup protocol that I follow to minimize the room’s contributions to the sound that I hear when I’m listening. Early reflections contribute to sense of intimacy and room bass augmentation can increase perceived space and ambiance. It is all about optimization of the face it’s at play and not about paying someone and think that the room has been “eliminated”. I hope that I’m driving the point home.

They scare the shit of people because they don't work! Honestly, the sound in your videos sounded like undifferentiated tubby reverb. If your system sounds great, I'd never be able to tell from the video. There is no practical way to capture the true sound of a system with a microphone because microphones don't hear sound anywhere near how the human ear/brain does. On the other hand, objective measurements taken at the listening position tell a lot of things, which is why I asked for them.

For what it's worth, I didn't pay someone to make an 'estimated' room for me. I designed it myself.

 

[kach22i]

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.

I think a reviewer going through many types of loudspeakers with a different positioning requirements (electrostatics further out from the wall etc...) needs side wall diffusion that is also adjustable.

I mean even us guys that don't change our systems for decades don't bolt our listening chair to the the floor for instance, right?

One of my recordings sounded superior in a near-field listing position, another sounded better further back....I should have moved my first reflection diffusers in kind in retrospect.

I agree that fixed side diffusion incorporated into the design in theory would look better, but one looses flexibility and or adaptability.

One of the forum regulars had his room professionally designed, and when the designer saw his posted images she suggested that he move his side wall equipment rack back a couple more feet. He moved the rack back and the sound opened up and was better. Had he had built-in equipment shelves he could not have done that.

Flexibility is king in my opinion.

 

[cjf]

While I do agree that making at least some effort to place your gear into a decently shaped room is a worthwhile effort in combination with physically placing the speakers and MLP (Main Listening Position) in their ideal points in that same room I do not fall into the camp of someone who believes that the room should be cluttered up with a bunch of acoustic treatments.

IMO, these treatments are more akin to Sledgehammers than they are to being Scalpels in their attempt to "Fix" a very specific set of Freq's band issues that need fixing. Now with that said, if you find that your room is that bad and has issues at a certain point in the Freq band that would otherwise require 25-30db of Room Correction headroom loss at that Freq band, then sure, go ahead and apply the physical treatments to take care of the heavy lifting in that problem area. This is assuming you can find a physical treatment specific enough to "Fix" your particular issue.

I'm not aware of any physical Room Treatments that can be as specific as DRC (Digital Room Correction) can be. I know DRC is not a popular topic among the "purists" but I think its a better tool for the job without clobbering a whole range of Freq's just to fix one or a few issues at a very specific point in the Freq Range. With DRC you can apply pin point "fixes" exactly where they need to be applied.