The argument for/against room treatment

[PeterA]

I liked the analogy myself. Not so clear is your comment... you have moved from mostly objective features to subjective, and changed from the aural to visual. Just because your vision is obstructed would have zero impact on the road surface or the cars performance. What aural property are you making analogous to filtered sunlight, or fog?

i’m saying is difficult to drive if you can’t see clearly just like it’s difficult to understand the music if the frequency response is being altered or filtered by room treatments. Regardless I was asking the question because I don’t understand the driving analogy.

rather than analogies, perhaps we should simply go back to what we hear from our systems in our rooms.

 

[Bobvin]

i’m saying is difficult to drive if you can’t see clearly just like it’s difficult to understand the music if the frequency response is being altered or filtered by room treatments. Regardless I was asking the question because I don’t understand the driving analogy.

rather than analogies, perhaps we should simply go back to what we hear from our systems in our rooms.

But Peter, the sound is ALWAYS being impacted by the room to one degree or another. No treatments, bare walls: comb filtering. Sure you can change your listening position, adjust your speakers, but you are then modifying what you hear. Your ‘natural’ might be another fellow’s unfocused sound. Is your ‘natural’ sound the same at low volume vs cranked?

My room, before acoustic remodel sounded pretty damn good—until the volume went way up. You speak of the energy of the sound and I will argue in your room there is a level where there is too much energy and the sound will turn bad. If someone likes to listen loud room treatment might be the only option. No doubt ‘treating’ can make things worse it always comes down to application. Even a leather couch vs fabric makes a difference after all.

Where I am in contention with using the term like ’natural’ is it can come across as a value judgement, i.e. natural is righteous and good, the alternative must therefore be synthetic and bad. And it is not a term readily agreed upon therefore analogies can be helpful. Audio geeks value different qualities, and may treat their rooms to advance those qualities. In that case I argue for room treatment.

 

[Kingrex]

Interesting - I wonder if that extra height allows a clearer benefit of having and MTM arrangement that gives a narrower vertical dispersion pattern hence minimizing floor reflections , sitting on the floor you get a complete mirror reflection and 6 db boost from lower woofer - your new position may be reducing floor reflection cancellation effects
a wild stab in the dark on my part

Phil

Thats what I wondered. Is that immediate reflection from the woofer less pronounced now.
But there was another change. The speaker is on a very dense piece of LVL, that is laying on a 3/4" thick sheet of glass insulation. Its somewhat isolated from the floor. It floats around a bit. I dont like that as I wonder how much of the cone energy is lost to physical movement of the baffles in air. But its so much better than before so I have not messed with it.

 

[PeterA]

But Peter, the sound is ALWAYS being impacted by the room to one degree or another. No treatments, bare walls: comb filtering. Sure you can change your listening position, adjust your speakers, but you are then modifying what you hear. Your ‘natural’ might be another fellow’s unfocused sound. Is your ‘natural’ sound the same at low volume vs cranked?

My room, before acoustic remodel sounded pretty damn good—until the volume went way up. You speak of the energy of the sound and I will argue in your room there is a level where there is too much energy and the sound will turn bad. If someone likes to listen loud room treatment might be the only option. No doubt ‘treating’ can make things worse it always comes down to application. Even a leather couch vs fabric makes a difference after all.

Where I am in contention with using the term like ’natural’ is it can come across as a value judgement, i.e. natural is righteous and good, the alternative must therefore be synthetic and bad. And it is not a term readily agreed upon therefore analogies can be helpful. Audio geeks value different qualities, and may treat their rooms to advance those qualities. In that case I argue for room treatment.

Bob, I have written about how I used to enjoy the sound of my room with lots of room treatments. It was a different sound for sure and I like it very much for many years. Others liked it too. Then my taste changed and I now like it with the room treatments removed.

I’m not saying what is right and what is wrong. And I’m not saying anyone is gonna like the same thing I like. All I’m saying is that I now prefer the sound of my system without the room treatments in the room because I think it sounds more like real music to me. It’s a simple as that.

Others are surely free to take their own approach to the hobby. The thread is about the arguments for or against room treatments. I have argued both for and against room treatments for my own changing preferences.

 

[Bjorn]

Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful reply Bjorn,
Just so I understand are these measurements done in the same room , and speaker and mic position
Also are they are rectangular window and not time gated - the dips at 50 and 100Hz look like room modes

If it is not too much trouble , pictures of speakers ( at least a similar type) or links would be great

My subjective experience has not been the same as yours - I have moved speakers from a room with absorptive floor at reflection points with some other treatment to a room with polished concrete floor but better treatment for ceiling and wall and the difference was astounding so I concluded ceiling and wall reflections are the bigger issue
Plus we have all heard great sound with no floor treatment
The speakers in the above example are MTM which will have a narrower vertical dispersion so perhaps that supports your position - I have never measured the vertical off axis response ( speakers too heavy to lift)

I agree that all early reflections should correlate with direct sound to the extent that neither absorption or diffusion are ideal and that, at first and second reflections points, reflection away from listener combined with absorption will give the best result - no non corelated early reflections while maintaining a nice reverberant tail in the room

All fascinating stuff - Its amazing how acoustics has moved forward in the last 10 years or so

Cheers
Phil

The measurements are from the same room and same position. No gating used in the mesurements.

Pictures of speakers below.
2-way design with no vertical lobing but doesn't avoid floor reflections


CBT36 which avoids floor reflections:


Horn speaker that minimizes floor reflections:


Take note that I didn't imply that floor reflections were more detrimental than other reflections. I only suggested that adding broadband treatment to the floor makes an importance difference and improvement to my ears with traditional speakers. A benefit of treating the floor broadband is that one also begins to deal with vertical modes and bass is improved. But obviously not very practical with thick absorption on the floor! But even a 2" absorbent on the floor is an improvement to my ears.

 

[Robh3606]

i’m saying is difficult to drive if you can’t see clearly just like it’s difficult to understand the music if the frequency response is being altered or filtered by room treatments. Regardless I was asking the question because I don’t understand the driving analogy.

rather than analogies, perhaps we should simply go back to what we hear from our systems in our rooms.

Hello Peter

Yes and what happens when you take speakers that are designed for a specific in-room response, Revel comes to mind, and you start adding absorbers that alter the overall power response. It seems to me that the room treatment should be below the shrouder? frequency where the room dominates and has the most influence. In many cases the panels are more effective above and basically are useless where they could do the most good.

Rob

 

[Bjorn]

Hello Peter

Yes and what happens when you take speakers that are designed for a specific in-room response, Revel comes to mind, and you start adding absorbers that alter the overall power response. It seems to me that the room treatment should be below the shrouder? frequency where the room dominates and has the most influence. In many cases the panels are more effective above and basically are useless where they could do the most good.

Rob

Broadband treatment of specular energy will generally alter power response a lot less than most surfaces/furnitures in a room. The room surfaces and it's interior has a complex impedance and isn't neutral.

Secondly, even when it's able to maintain the spectral content to a great degree it's can still be looked upon as a distorted signal because of the difference in arrival of time compared to the direct sound and the comb filtering effect. Some may still prefer it, and especially if it arrives sufficiently late in time, but it does have a negative effect on accuracy and therefore is avoided in mixing and mastering rooms.

Problem with a lot of treatment sold is that's not broadband enough.

 

[stehno]

Earlier I missed Peter's point about having the untreated room set up by an expert, with the notion that perhaps the arrangement alone can adequately negate any undesirable effect on the sound caused by the room. I'm absolutely certain that this can be done to some people's satisfaction in at least some rooms.

Sorry I had to cut off some of your text thoughout as it was causing me to go over the max chars.

It sure wasn't easy for me. If indeed I have it. This is my 3rd room and by far my most dificult. For example. I'm too embarassed to say how many years I went between having and not having musical bass because I gave up long ago and musical bass became but a distant memory. The point being that given enough resources and/or perseverance quite possibly anything can be improved i.e. either more musical or more tolerant, which in a sense is more musical, right?

I'm certain also that we could still easily measure with instruments the effects the room was having on the sound at the listening position, and that the average person could easily hear those effects. By placing acoustic treatme......

I'm sure you can. I imagine when a playback system's music presentation is in direct competition / conflict with a room's boundaries it could be rather easy to measure. It's a competiton. But guess what? For those who can meaure the differences It's also quite possibly a confession that at this level, one's listening perspective is still in the listening room. IOW, the confession is that the playback system is failing to keep audible such volumes of what is perhaps the lowest of low-level detail i.e the volumes of the concert hall's volumes of ambient info and much has been embedded in the vast majority of my music library. That would considered a rather unresolving playback system and unmusical playback presentation, right? I'm just trying to say maybe it doesn't have to be that way.

Say you've got SOTA-level recording gear and your at the gymnasium to record basketball bounces and reverberating through the empty gym. Back home, you play it back on your system and it sounds more like a ping pong ball than a basketball bouncing and reverberating. What acoustic treatment might convert that ping pong ball back to a basketball?

Hopefully we're in agreement that the music info any of us hears at theie speaker is going to be percentages less than the 100% emedded in the recording. After all, it is an imperfect world. If one agrees with this, the one question nobody seems to ask is, if I'm hearing less than 100% at the speaker, of say a single guitar note, then are the percentage drops equal across all that note's sonic characteristics or is there a hierarchy of sonic characteristics within the single note that become inaudible first? The answer is, the speaker output of a very inferior system would have a music presentation heavily loaded with the music notes making a laser beam for the recording mic and excluding much of the decay as well as the music note traveling throughout the hall. IOW, the lowest of low-level detail i.e. the recording hall's ambient info is the first to become inaudible and the last or easilest thing to remain audible in a severly corrupted system is the note's inital attack that typically make a direct line for the recording mic's. I'm guessing this is precisely why many are convinced they need acoustic treatments.

I'll try to go with your sports car analogy. Most cars are specifically designed to work on roads that are paved to a certain degree of smoothness. Some are made to handle more roughness with certain compromises in aerodynamics and handling. If we play with this analogy we can ask ourselves what kind of a room is like a smooth paved road and which is like a potholed and rutted dirt road? What is the equivalent to the expert room setup?

Sure you can and you may get some benefit. However, since you piggy-backed off of my analogy, remember, the sports car's fuel is still 79 octane. The implication being that it's still sputtering, spitting, and stalling every 3 seconds. No matter how fabulously paved the road or how fabulously the room was treated. Is this not dealing with the effects rather than the cause? Why defend / support that mindset?

First I'll suggest that the expert room setup is like choosing your line while driving. Where on the road can I position this car so that it's going to take the best possible path? We'll assume that this road is repetitive in it's surface features so that you can meaningfully choose a single line and stick with it.

Ok. But as you think this through are you not coming from the perspective that your listening perspective is still in the listening room? I'm gettting the impression that somehow you guys think having musicians in your listening room is some type of badge of honor. It's not and it never will be. Unless we've somehow convinced ourselves this is now a good philosophy / target. If so, why?

I had just re-posted this video of Nina Simone 1965 to defend a position in a similar thread. In all honesty, do you think the listening perspective here is in my listening room or somewhere / anywhere but my listening room? Does the ambient info here seem like my room's been acoustically treated? If somebody asked me this question, my answer would be, hell if I know, I'm only hearing some perspective from anywhere but the listening room and to the best of my knowledge no room can be treated to generate that sound / perspctive. If the music info ain't there, there's no amount of foam in the world that can restore that missing music info. Yet, this seems to be your position. Why?

Next I'll suggest that an anechoic chamber is like a glassy smooth, perfectly flat road. Any roughness you feel in the vehicle and any impediment to forward motion would not b the road surfac....

You kiinda' lost me. At a minimum, because I would never associate a glassy smooth surface with an anechoic chamber. It's an oxymoron kinda' thing. A room filled with foam maybe and without a glassy smooth surface to be found anywhere within.

I'll say a reverb chamber would be equivalent to super rough off road course, where you can't even reach 5 mph without being shaken and jostled around considerably. It doesn't matter much what line you choose - they're all horrible. ....

Why the reverb chamber? Surely you don't think I'm taking that position, do you? I have wall-to-wall carpet / pad and there are a few small furnishing. I do cosider these or something comparable as minium requirements. That's basic 101 stuff isn't it? We're talking acoustic panels and things I presume "The Audio Expert" discusses because he mfg'ers acoustic panels.

I'm just trying to say after having a few reasonable room basics performing due diligence with speaker placement and subwoofer tuning can do wonders for a playback presentation and it's free to all. As does a system's drastically lowered noise floor. So the now audible volumes of music are able to overshadow (rather than compete with) the room's acoustic anomalies.

Obviously speakers aren't intended to be played in anechoic chambers or reverb chambers. I think it's safe to say though that listening in the reverb chamber would be the more difficult and unpleasant experience. We'd probably end up sitting with a speaker right next to each ear - essentially turning them into big headphones to get rid of the obnoxious room sound. The reverb chamb....

I'm uncertain why you're sharing this. Near as I can tell, none these things have much to do with anything I've ever said. I hope.

My depiction is suggesting that the more capable your system is of filling a room with powerful, accurate sound, the more acoustic treatments will matter. I feel confident that it's true. If you are right up close to some small speak....

Perhaps.

How bad does a system have to be to not potentially benefit from room acoustics? I'd say considerably worse than anybody's system who's on this forum. How rough and awful does a car have to run before you can't even tell that you've driven over a pothole?

As I think I said earlier, most anything can be improved even a little given enough resources. But you seem to speak as if you're coming from a perspective of the playback presentation competing head-on with room acoustic anomalies. Whereas I'm coming from the perspecitve of increased percentages of music now overshadow most/all room anomalies. I suspect one of us prefers dealing with the effects rather than the cause.

 

[gfroman]

Not sure if this is the right spot, but is there a good iPhone ap for measuring room acoustics?
Don't want to spend a lot, but would help fine tuning my room.
Thanks!

 

[Bjorn]

Not sure if this is the right spot, but is there a good iPhone ap for measuring room acoustics?
Don't want to spend a lot, but would help fine tuning my room.
Thanks!

No. You need a good software like REW and at least a decent USB mic.
Most importantly thought, it's really interpreting measurements and how to apply them that's the important factor. A major mistake today is that many acousticians use large rooms acoustics knowledge for small rooms. That fails miserably because they are completely different in nature and needs to be addressed very different as well.

 

[stehno]

Not sure if this is the right spot, but is there a good iPhone ap for measuring room acoustics?
Don't want to spend a lot, but would help fine tuning my room.
Thanks!

No. You need a good software like REW and at least a decent USB mic.
Most importantly thought, it's really interpreting measurements and how to apply them that's the important factor. A major mistake today is that many acousticians use large rooms acoustics knowledge for small rooms. That fails miserably because they are completely different in nature and needs to be addressed very different as well.

You guys really seem to enjoy dealing with the effects rather than the cause, don't you? In so doing, are you not completely neglecting the cause (your system's poor performance) in favor of the effects (your room's performance)? In case you don't know, dealing with the effects usually costs many times more than dealing with the cause and more importantly, dealing with effects never remedies the problem and therefore is a losing strategy that consumes much resources.

Hypothetically, which has the greater potential? Drastically improving the room to improve a playback system's performance? Or drastically improving a playback system's performance to improve a room aka completely overshadow a room's acoustic anomalies?

Answer me this. Why do your systems sound like the musicians are in your room and why do you find that poor level of performance acceptable? Better yet, why are your playback systems playback presentation competing head on with your rooms' acoustic anomalies?

Please do yourselves a favor and listen to this piece and evaluate the distance between you and the performance and the various instruments, the ambient info of the recording hall, the depth and width of the soundstage, your overall listening perspective in comparison to the performance. Ask yourself if this sounds like an orchestra playing in a listeniing room that was once a kitchen.

And if you're still convinced having an orchestra playing in your room is considered musical and acceptable and something to strive toward, why not post an in-room video so we can evaluate?

 

[Bjorn]

Dealing with the room is dealing with the cause. Even with speakers that measures exceptionally well, the room will greatly influence in regards to flutter echo, comb filtering, specular reflections and room modes. The use of quality diffusers also brings something psychoacoustical that's very vital. There are no speakers or equipment that can detach itself from the room and acoustics. The latter will always influence the result greatly. There's a reason why control rooms and mastering rooms are heavily treated.

That being said, one should always start with speakers that measures well. Having speakers with both controlled and limited directivity can certainly minimize some room treatment. But we're only talking about minimizing it some if you want a great result.

You need to listen in a room that's well treated to understand and experience it. A video isn't going to demonstrate this very well, though there are some before and after videos that at least gives a small impression. However, you really need to be in the treated room.

Personally I'll much rather listen to mediocre setup in a great room vs top equipment set up in a poor or mediocre acoustical room. The difference is striking.

 

[stehno]

Dealing with the room is dealing with the cause. Even with speakers that measures exceptionally well, the room will greatly influence in regards to flutter echo, comb filtering, specular reflections and room modes. The use of quality diffusers also brings something psychoacoustical that's very vital. There are no speakers or equipment that can detach itself from the room and acoustics. The latter will always influence the result greatly. There's a reason why control rooms and mastering rooms are heavily treated.

That being said, one should always start with speakers that measures well. Having speakers with both controlled and limited directivity can certainly minimize some room treatment. But we're only talking about minimizing it some if you want a great result.

You need to listen in a room that's well treated to understand and experience it. A video isn't going to demonstrate this very well, though there are some before and after videos that at least gives a small impression. However, you really need to be in the treated room.

Personally I'll much rather listen to mediocre setup in a great room vs top equipment set up in a poor or mediocre acoustical room. The difference is striking.

I'm guessing your confusion lies with the difference between "top equipment" and a truly resolving playback system. The difference is usually quite large and "top equipment" is not a requirement for a truly resolving system. Though it never hurts.

 

[Bjorn]

I'm guessing your confusion lies with the difference between "top equipment" and a truly resolving playback system. The difference is usually quite large and "top equipment" is not a requirement for a truly resolving system. Though it never hurts.

No. But the room will greatly influence the result no matter what equipment you have. That's simply physics and everyone who has experiences with acoustics the treatment know this.

Actually, true resolving playback system will let you hear the room anomalies more clearly.

 

[stehno]

No. But the room will greatly influence the result no matter what equipment you have. That's simply physics and everyone who has experiences with acoustics the treatment know this.

Actually, true resolving playback system will let you hear the room anomalies more clearly.

You're guessing and you guessed wrong. Which implies to me that even though you may indeed have experienced many a playback system consisting of "top equipment", you speak as though you've never actually experienced a truly resolving playback system where volumes and volumes of ambient info of the live performance captured at the recording actually remained audible at the speaker. Very few have.

Because a truly resolving system will make audible large (think well into the double-digits) percentages of music info embedded in the recording but previously inaudible at the speaker. Think much raised noise floor. IOW, when a truly resolving playback system makes BOATLOADS more music info audible, the room and ALL of its acoustic anomalies are so completely overshadowed, you're listening perspective is no longer in the listening room but somewhere in the recording hall. On the other hand, when all this additional music info remains inaudible because of the system's much raised noise floor, the playback presentation is in direct competition with perhaps every room acoustic anomaly.

Based on your previous post, if my supposedly resolving playback system's presentation without room acoustic treatments is able to keep much of the ambient info embedded in the recording audible at the speaker so it completely overshadows perhaps every room acoustic anomaly, that alone should suffice as evidence that acoustic treatments are dealing with the effects. Besides, it's impossible for any collection of acoustic treatments to actually improve the cause (a playback system's much raised noise floor). Even a demonstration with a lowly amateurish in-room recording should suffice as evidence enough. Especially if I'm able to demonstrate with more than one such recording as I've already done many times with both grossly inferior recordings as well as superior recordings.

 

[Bjorn]

You're guessing and you guessed wrong. Which implies to me that even though you may indeed have experienced many a playback system consisting of "top equipment", you speak as though you've never actually experienced a truly resolving playback system where volumes and volumes of ambient info of the live performance captured at the recording actually remained audible at the speaker. Very few have.

Because a truly resolving system will make audible large (think well into the double-digits) percentages of music info embedded in the recording but previously inaudible at the speaker. Think much raised noise floor. IOW, when a truly resolving playback system makes BOATLOADS more music info audible, the room and ALL of its acoustic anomalies are so completely overshadowed, you're listening perspective is no longer in the listening room but somewhere in the recording hall. On the other hand, when all this additional music info remains inaudible because of the system's much raised noise floor, the playback presentation is in direct competition with perhaps every room acoustic anomaly.

Based on your previous post, if my supposedly resolving playback system's presentation without room acoustic treatments is able to keep much of the ambient info embedded in the recording audible at the speaker so it completely overshadows perhaps every room acoustic anomaly, that alone should suffice as evidence that acoustic treatments are dealing with the effects. Besides, it's impossible for any collection of acoustic treatments to actually improve the cause (a playback system's much raised noise floor). Even a demonstration with a lowly amateurish in-room recording should suffice as evidence enough. Especially if I'm able to demonstrate with more than one such recording as I've already done many times with both grossly inferior recordings as well as superior recordings.

A "resolving system" doesn't remove flutter echo. It doesn't remove room modes and low frequency resonances. And neither specular reflections. All of these influence the sound greatly. There' no magic happening here that these goes away or can't be heard anymore because the system is so great.

Perhaps you've been lucky with your room and simply don't think it can get better due to lack of experiences. But I know you're wrong and need to hear a great room and understand the contribution of the room as well acoustic products of high quality. You can't get lateral late arrival diffuse tail, and which has an enormous effect on every setup, without quality treatment. You'll be missing out on something major.

I both have heard and design true resolving systems. A great room and acoustics simply brings it to another level. I don't think you'll find many that agree with you. I'll leave at that.

 

[Ron Resnick]

You're guessing and you guessed wrong. Which implies to me that even though you may indeed have experienced many a playback system consisting of "top equipment", you speak as though you've never actually experienced a truly resolving playback system where volumes and volumes of ambient info of the live performance captured at the recording actually remained audible at the speaker. Very few have.

Please dial down the snarkiness and the arrogance.

Thank you.

 

[Al M.]

No. But the room will greatly influence the result no matter what equipment you have. That's simply physics and everyone who has experiences with acoustics the treatment know this.

Actually, true resolving playback system will let you hear the room anomalies more clearly.

A "resolving system" doesn't remove flutter echo. It doesn't remove room modes and low frequency resonances. And neither specular reflections. All of these influence the sound greatly. There' no magic happening here that these goes away or can't be heard anymore because the system is so great.

I tried to explain this, but I gave up. At some point further discussion becomes futile.

I don't think you'll find many that agree with you.

That's the main point.

 

[Al M.]

Actually, true resolving playback system will let you hear the room anomalies more clearly.

Precisely my experience.

When I upgraded to a more resolving system three years ago, I discovered and had to take care of a number of acoustic problems in my room that simply hadn't manifested themselves clearly with my earlier system.

 

[stehno]

A "resolving system" doesn't remove flutter echo. It doesn't remove room modes and low frequency resonances.

You are correct, well sorta'. This part of the playback vineyard belongs to the speaker and/or a subwoofer's interaction with a given room (i.e. optimal placement and tuning). IOW, a playback system's noise floor level has very limited influence in this regard. But this has already been discussed earlier.

But where you are incorrect is thinking that it is beneficial to once again deal with the effects (room modes, flutter, etc) with acoustic treatments rather than dealing with the cause - which in this case is inferior speaker / subwoofer placement and tuning.

Bass has a noise floor not too dissimilar to a playback system's noise floor. Move a speaker 1/2-inch here or there or tune a subwoofer here or ther and bass notes become audible or inaudible. That's a mechanical energy / acoustic noise floor of sorts. In contrast, every playback system starts off with a much raised noise floor and each time it is lowered a notch, more and more music info becomes audible at the speaker. This is primarily an electrical energy noise floor.

Each of these two noise floors has its area of responsibility within the playback vineyard and with very limited overlap into the other's part. When both sectors are sufficiently addressed any such NEED for acoustic treatments and/or custom rooms is either greatly diminished or gone. But both take much work. BTW, there are numerous other NEEDS/folklore that are greatly diminshed or gone when these two areas are sufficiently addressed. Rooms being the most important component and the need for acoustic treatments are but two of them. For example. If you study my 2 components carefully you might realize they are among they most humble components found within this forum which should not only provide more evidence to substantiate my claims but also sufficiently address yet another very popular folklore.

And neither specular reflections. All of these influence the sound greatly.

Perhaps all of these influence the sound greatly when an unresolving playback system is in use and/or little work has been performed to place and/or tune speakers and/or subwoofers. But for a truly resolving playback system where much attention has also been given to speaker placement and/or subwoofer tuning, there is little if any influence.

There' no magic happening here that these goes away or can't be heard anymore because the system is so great.

Agreed, there is no magic whatsoever as I've tried to share that. I'm just sharing information which includes the results of my efforts focused on the causes rather than the effects, etc. If you choose not to believe what I share and prefer to keep doing what's been done for decades to bandage bleeding playback systems that is your perrogative. But I can assure you such status quo strategies offer very little relief in comparison.

To test if what I'm saying is true, use your smartphone to record a few in-room videos just for your own personal viewing and then compare to those I've shared.

Perhaps you've been lucky with your room ...

Lucky? Hardly, this is my 3rd room in 21 years and this is by far my worst room to work with and though I consider my bass quite musical, it still isn't quite on par with my first two rooms both in which I did not use a subwoofer.

and simply don't think it can get better due to lack of experiences.

As I've mentioned before, most anything can be made to sound more musical. It's a journey, not a destination and it's an imperfect world and we're all dealing with imperfect rooms, power, equipment, etc. Any given recording contains exactly 100% of all the music info we're able to hear and all we can do is strive to make as much of that 100% music info audible at the speaker. Either we can deal with the effects, e.g. tubes, formats, acoustic treatments, custom rooms, multi-channel, omni-directional speakers etc. or we can focus on the causes. One strategy makes all the difference in the world while the other strategy consumes much resources while providing very little benefit.

As for for lack of experience? I've no doubt you have experience but I'm guessing your experience is limited to the status quo which never got anybody very far regardig real levels of musicality. My experience happens to reside in a couple of areas that others have taken for granted or gave very little attention. Or when they have given these neglected areas their attention it seems to have always been with little more than token efforts and/or employing inferior designs, materials, principles, and/or methods. But with regard to experience, at what point should our ability to discern / interpret what we hear enter into this discussioin?

But I know you're wrong and need to hear a great room and understand the contribution of the room as well acoustic products of high quality.

Assuming for sake of argument that I am wrong, it should take little effort on your part to provide an in-room recording that meets or exceeds the musicality as these videos below or above. BTW, I'm using an iPhone 12 pro and Shure MV88 stereo condenser mic.

Room modes?

You can't get lateral late arrival diffuse tail, and which has an enormous effect on every setup, without quality treatment. You'll be missing out on something major.

I both have heard and design true resolving systems. A great room and acoustics simply brings it to another level. I don't you'll find many that agree with you. I'll leave at that.

I've already demonstrated more than once via my in-room videos the best room you'll ever hear. The room that's been so overshadowed with music, the room all but gone. What more could you possibly ask for than a room (filled with acoustic anomalies) that for all intensive purposes no longer exists when listening to music?