The argument for/against room treatment

[Al M.]

And I just don't see how any acoustic treatments can compensate for a playback system's lack of speed / quickness.

No, they cannot. Yet they can reveal the intrinsic speed / quickness when it is otherwise blurred by room reflections.

I don't doubt that acoustic treatments can seemingly improve a playback presentation. However, if the playback system itself generates shortcomings (inaudible or corrupted music info) I just can't see the logic where acoustic treatments of any sort can restore any of that music info lost or corrupted.

Unwanted and uncontrolled room reflections can corrupt the signal. Acoustic treatments do not 'restore' anything, they prevent the acoustic corruption in the first place.

There is electronic noise and there is acoustic noise. Room treatments reduce the latter. They don't "seemingly" improve a playback presentation, they can do it actually, by reducing acoustic noise.

Both electronic noise and acoustic noise are that -- noise. It is important to eliminate all noise. Elimination of only electronic noise or of only acoustic noise is not sufficient. Both types of noise need to be addressed.

That would truly be a really neat trick because to the best of my knowlede such technology to restore / correct what's missing or corrupted has not been invented. Rather I can only envision acoustic treatments make an existing playback presentation more listenable. In which case acoustic treatments can only compensate for the effects (what we hear) and not actually address the cause at the playback system. IMO of course.

Room treatments do not compensate for a lack of quality of the musical signal, and they cannot compensate for electronic noise. Info lost on the system level is info lost, period. Yet room treatments can prevent acoustic corruption of an electronically pristine signal as it is transduced through speakers and travels through the room to the listener's ears.

There were numerous instances over the years where I thought there was distortion by my system, but it turned out that the perceived distortion was due to uncontrolled reflections in the room. The signal presented by the system itself was clean.

 

[Bjorn]

A well designed diffuser distributes the energy equally in different directions. Very few so called diffusers in the marked today actually does that but a simply scatters. Which basically sends the energy in an unequal matter.

Another issue with a lot absorptive products is the lack of being broadband, leading to equalizing the spectral content. Few have heard great treatment added correctly.

 

[microstrip]

Microstrip, I'm curious if you're still hanging on to the theory that your house mains is very stable? If so, what evidence do you have to support your theory?

Not theory, facts! I have a voltmeter almost permanently connected to check mains voltage and occasionally I check for THD and spectra of the mains. I get readings of 230 +/- 3 typically, worst case +/- 6V in a few unique occasions at day time, and around 2 % THD . The spectra and THD are always very similar.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Unwanted and uncontrolled room reflections can corrupt the signal. Acoustic treatments do not 'restore' anything, they prevent the acoustic corruption in the first place. (...)

Two remarks - many people will consider that room reflections are wanted. And specially that improperly controlled acoustic treatments are much worst than uncontrolled room reflections.

Bias expectation plays a big role in acoustic treatments listening. And unless we have great experience or knowledge, we risk just taming sound to our momentary preference or a specific set of recordings.

 

[Al M.]

Two remarks - many people will consider that room reflections are wanted.

I haven't said otherwise. I specifically mentioned unwanted reflections. I don't see your need to dissect my statement out of context.

And specially that improperly controlled acoustic treatments are much worst than uncontrolled room reflections.

Both are bad. Hard to quantify one against the other, especially since any assessments will be situation dependent.

Bias expectation plays a big role in acoustic treatments listening. And unless we have great experience or knowledge, we risk just taming sound to our momentary preference or a specific set of recordings.

That certainly is a risk indeed.

 

[microstrip]

I haven't said otherwise. I specifically mentioned unwanted reflections. I don't see your need to dissect my statement out of context.

IMHO, it was in context, since you have not defined what are exactly unwanted reflections and we do not know exactly what is your target.

Both are bad. Hard to quantify one against the other, especially since any assessments will be situation dependent.

The subject becomes challenging just because it is hard ... Otherwise the subject becomes just informative. The subject becomes important to analyze the causes of acoustic distortion you are now addressing.

That certainly is a risk indeed.

 

[JeffL]

Could I just chip in with a basic question, please? Listening room is about 23' by 13' by 8' and is actually the main sitting room so can't be totally audio-dedicated. It has wall-to-wall carpeting and a fair mount of upholstery.

From members' pics it looks as though most rooms have at last some uncarpeted timber flooring, though can't tell what proportion. I can't find any references to this aspect of room acoustics and was wondering if there is a general view on this. We may need to get rid the current carpet soon and was wondering whether to replace or go for timber flooring with large-ish rug or two.

Many thanks.

 

[Mikem53]

Could I just chip in with a basic question, please? Listening room is about 23' by 13' by 8' and is actually the main sitting room so can't be totally audio-dedicated. It has wall-to-wall carpeting and a fair mount of upholstery.

From members' pics it looks as though most rooms have at last some uncarpeted timber flooring, though can't tell what proportion. I can't find any references to this aspect of room acoustics and was wondering if there is a general view on this. We may need to get rid the current carpet soon and was wondering whether to replace or go for timber flooring with large-ish rug or two.

Many thanks.

I prefer carpeting and currently have an area rug over hardwood flooring. My previous audio room had all carpeting. My current room is open to other rooms and has various ceiling heights from 10’ - 14 feet.
I tried the hardwood w/o carpeting and was getting too many reflection. Much better with carpeting and having the rest of the room fairly “active”. I only have two absorption panels which were behind each speaker, but now are on the one side wall and not really needed As I rearranged and moved the speakers out into the room. Room dependent of course, but these were my experiences.

 

[pdubya]

Could I just chip in with a basic question, please? Listening room is about 23' by 13' by 8' and is actually the main sitting room so can't be totally audio-dedicated. It has wall-to-wall carpeting and a fair mount of upholstery.

From members' pics it looks as though most rooms have at last some uncarpeted timber flooring, though can't tell what proportion. I can't find any references to this aspect of room acoustics and was wondering if there is a general view on this. We may need to get rid the current carpet soon and was wondering whether to replace or go for timber flooring with large-ish rug or two.

Many thanks.

What subfloor? Concrete slab or suspended? I have low-loop wall to wall olefin over slab in one basement and it’s great. (Avoid nylon at all costs — static.) Big room (23x36’), speakers in space, but between carpet and large sectional never felt need for more absorption. Or diffusion.

 

[stehno]

No, they cannot. Yet they can reveal the intrinsic speed / quickness when it is otherwise blurred by room reflections.

Unwanted and uncontrolled room reflections can corrupt the signal. Acoustic treatments do not 'restore' anything, they prevent the acoustic corruption in the first place.

There is electronic noise and there is acoustic noise. Room treatments reduce the latter. They don't "seemingly" improve a playback presentation, they can do it actually, by reducing acoustic noise.

Both electronic noise and acoustic noise are that -- noise. It is important to eliminate all noise. Elimination of only electronic noise or of only acoustic noise is not sufficient. Both types of noise need to be addressed.

Room treatments do not compensate for a lack of quality of the musical signal, and they cannot compensate for electronic noise. Info lost on the system level is info lost, period. Yet room treatments can prevent acoustic corruption of an electronically pristine signal as it is transduced through speakers and travels through the room to the listener's ears.

There were numerous instances over the years where I thought there was distortion by my system, but it turned out that the perceived distortion was due to uncontrolled reflections in the room. The signal presented by the system itself was clean.

As I've stated several times, my experience tells me that when a playback system's noise floor is so dramatically lowered its playback presentation will completely overshawdow most/all room acoutic anomalies. I think I've demonstrated that fairly well including sharing a few in-room videos which is my best evidence as words can be so cheap in this audio-only hobby.

In contrast, I also speculated (I don't really know for sure) several times when a playback system's noise floor remains rather high and the playback presentation is significantly compromised. Then that significantly compromised playback presentation most likely must compete head-to-head with perhaps every last room acoustic anomaly (since they cannot be overshadowed). In such circumstances acoustic treatments are perhaps a requirement to make the presentation more tolerable. More importantly, it's a testament to what we have / have not done to improve our playback systems as well as a testament to one's defintions of the term "due diligence". If per some odd chance this is your perspective then I understand and in fact I agree with you.

Also, I stated more than once that because acoustic treatments CANNOT improve our playback systems e.g. the cause, they can only deal with the effects of its playback presentation. That is a fact if I ever heard one in high-end audio. How is it some of you cannot connect some of these dots?

But the proof is in the puddin'. As you can see from some others' comments, in-room videos are beneficial to some and can be rather telling about some things but not quite all things and their value is catching on a little more each day. As far as I'm concerned, there's no reason to take anybody at their word without some evidence to back it up. In fact, far too long this industry has taken others at their word and I suspect that alone is one of the industry's greatest downfalls.

Hopefully nobody's here to intentionally be dogmatic sticks in the mud. You're a smart can-do kinda' guy, right? So why not pony up an in-room video of your own to demonstrate how your acoustic treatments deliver a sufficient level of musicality for your playback presentation? I'm not asking you to like or value in-room videos, nor to believe in in-room videos. It's irrelevant. You don't even need an external mic as at least in my case my smartphone's built-in is actually sufficient enough to convey the message, even if recorded in mono. Sure all these videos require a bit of imagination to listen to just like most playback systems themselves require a bit of imagination to listen to.

Or do you think your word and your logic is sufficient enough in this audio-only hobby? But if you're unable/unwilling to provide an in-room video, then would you please articulate here what you've done to dramatically improve your playback system itself and/or dramatically lower your playback system's much raised noise floor? That won't be near as good as an in-room video but it should still give some of us a much better perspective where you and/or your playback system is coming from.

Rock and Drum videos thread

www.whatsbestforum.com

BTW, based on this and perhaps other links, I'm betting you do get some value from these in-room recordings.

 

[wil]

I agree there can be something to learn from system video's, but it would be helpful if those who are enthusiastic about sharing their videos included the following:

Share the specifics of your source recording. And really, streamed recording are much more useful, allowing comparison of the same exact source. It's not going to tell you much if one video is from a treasured first pressing, another is CD from a different master and another is streamed.

 

[Lagonda]

Could I just chip in with a basic question, please? Listening room is about 23' by 13' by 8' and is actually the main sitting room so can't be totally audio-dedicated. It has wall-to-wall carpeting and a fair mount of upholstery.

From members' pics it looks as though most rooms have at last some uncarpeted timber flooring, though can't tell what proportion. I can't find any references to this aspect of room acoustics and was wondering if there is a general view on this. We may need to get rid the current carpet soon and was wondering whether to replace or go for timber flooring with large-ish rug or two.

Many thanks.

A general rule is that a lot of setups like bare hardwood flooring in the first third of the room, it gives a live dynamic sound without to much unwanted reflections that mess with imaging. I have had success with this formula in rooms with marble/granite flooring too.

 

[wil]

What subfloor? Concrete slab or suspended? I have low-loop wall to wall olefin over slab in one basement and it’s great. (Avoid nylon at all costs — static.) Big room (23x36’), speakers in space, but between carpet and large sectional never felt need for more absorption. Or diffusion.

I've always heard Wool is the best floor covering for audio.

 

[pdubya]

Wasn't keen on putting wall to wall wool over basement slab. Olefin relatively cheap and durable and loop is low dust.

Wool rugs over suspended hardwood floors, as depicted in sig, certainly seem to be the ticket as well. There's 10' of bare floor behind the Mezzos.

 

[Bjorn]

Could I just chip in with a basic question, please? Listening room is about 23' by 13' by 8' and is actually the main sitting room so can't be totally audio-dedicated. It has wall-to-wall carpeting and a fair mount of upholstery.

From members' pics it looks as though most rooms have at last some uncarpeted timber flooring, though can't tell what proportion. I can't find any references to this aspect of room acoustics and was wondering if there is a general view on this. We may need to get rid the current carpet soon and was wondering whether to replace or go for timber flooring with large-ish rug or two.

Many thanks.

While wall to wall carpet removes flutter echo, it's function basically like an equalizer taking down the higher frequencies. It's bandlimited type of treatment that changes the spectral content since it's only absorbing the highs and leaving rest of the spectral content untreated. It's not a good way to treat a room compared ot broadband treatment of high gain specular reflections.

It would better to have only a thick woolen carpet between the speakers and listening position and use better and more braodband acoustic treatment at especially first arriving reflections if that's something you can do. Using absorbents on the floor is generally a lot better than a carpet, but obviously not something one could leave permanently in a living room.

 

[JeffL]

I'm very grateful for all these comments. I have noticed that there is an apparent loss of high frequency detail even with modern recordings of e.g. violin sonatas where one might expect to hear more of the bow-on-string detail. Choral works can also sound blurry. On the other hand listening to a streamed version of Beatles' Tomorrow Never Knows (Revolver, remastered, Tidal) was stunning. Lennon's voice and diction "processed" via the Leslie speaker etc is crystal clear against the complexity of the multi-stranded backing. No lack of HF there... And a (re-engineered, of course) 1923 recording of Menuhin playing solo Bach revealed plenty of close-up treble from the Strad being played.

BTW the flooring is made of v hard (OSB?) panels laid on a concrete base. So there is a little movement underfoot but much less than with trad floorboarding. And no creaks or squeaks.
Thank you all again. I'll keep reading and thinking!

 

[PeterA]

Could I just chip in with a basic question, please? Listening room is about 23' by 13' by 8' and is actually the main sitting room so can't be totally audio-dedicated. It has wall-to-wall carpeting and a fair mount of upholstery.

From members' pics it looks as though most rooms have at last some uncarpeted timber flooring, though can't tell what proportion. I can't find any references to this aspect of room acoustics and was wondering if there is a general view on this. We may need to get rid the current carpet soon and was wondering whether to replace or go for timber flooring with large-ish rug or two.

Many thanks.

Personally, I much prefer the aesthetic of wood flooring plus area rugs. It also has the advantage of being flexible for acoustic experimentation. It provides more options. However, wall to wall carpeting is often the preferred choice due to cost considerations, ease of installation, etc.

 

[Lagonda]

Personally, I much prefer the aesthetic of wood flooring plus area rugs. It also has the advantage of being flexible for acoustic experimentation. It provides more options. However, wall to wall carpeting is often the preferred choice due to cost considerations, ease of installation, etc.

I had wall to wall heavy wool carpet, with a beautiful wood flooring underneath, experimentation led me to a surgical removal of the carpet on the first third of the flooring, if anything done with a box-cutter can be called surgical Result was a more dynamic livelier presentation without to many detrimental second wave reflections.

 

[bonzo75]

I had wall to wall heavy wool carpet, with a beautiful wood flooring underneath, experimentation led me to a surgical removal of the carpet on the first third of the flooring, if anything done with a box-cutter can be called surgical Result was a more dynamic livelier presentation without to many detrimental second wave reflections.

Wall to wall carpeting will let you roll over on the floor freely during your parties

 

[Lagonda]

Wall to wall carpeting will let you roll over on the floor freely during your parties

But wood flooring is better for dancing two-step when i listen to Country and Bluegrass music I feel strangely conflicted