The argument for/against room treatment

[DaveC]

Dave there are those here from industry who clearly share their experience freely, openly and with a good degree of transparency and obviously out of reasons of passion for the pursuit… there are also some who are clearly more directed to primarily commercial outcomes. Either way it’s important to have people from industry connecting with us for all to get feedback on where things are at from both areas.

It is a very unregulated industry full of ex-hobbyist as well as engineer and industrial design and so I do also feel there are variable levels of understanding from all sides… just because someone is in industry doesn’t guarantee anything often in terms of qualification really. This isn’t brain surgery so what it takes to declare yourself a professional is somewhat less than other more formalised professions. The quality of setup skills from dealers can also be highly variable and so with amateur or dealer there are simply no guarantees. The level of advice also can be highly variable. Some of the very best systems are setup by amateurs, and as hobbyists we are all standing on the shoulders of all those who have come before us and shared.

We are indebted to pioneering experts from both the professional and also the amateur sides of the spectrum. There could possibly be a benefit in ultimately less polarisation and the us and them distinctions and a simple acceptance that we are all only as good as our last setup.

I value the experience shared in general and like all make a call on the ultimate value of anything shared based on longer appreciation of where people are coming from and what is driving them… professional experience is certainly one part of that picture.

Yup, I totally agree.

There are a fair share of folks who discount expertise, education and experience. We're seeing a lot of anti-science sentiment lately, simply because it conflicts with belief.

You seem reasonable and able to take a more nuanced view, and I think in most cases there is a wide range of qualifications of folks in a particular industry. Many people do NOT take a nuanced view and on top of that, they are totally disrespectful and will do whatever they can to try to diminish you. Against all reason they will claim their N=1 experience as fact and discount your N=1000 dataset you've accumulated over decades of professional experience. As you might guess, this can be frustrating.

Personally, I refuse to call myself an expert, I don't think it's a helpful label... but there IS experience.

In other areas there are experts by the definition of the word, but rarely in a broad sense. For example Duke is an expert on 2-way horns with a particular design ethos. But, (correct me if I'm wrong.) he may know NOTHING about building omnis like MBL. Early audio shows are a great example that being an expert in an aspect of gear design has nearly NOTHING to do with setup... either pairing equipment OR room acoustics... or AC power/cables, etc.

The other tricky aspect to audio is determination of cause and effect is complicated and a majority of folks do not have the logic to come to correct conclusions about the reasons they hear what they hear. IME at least half of the conclusions people come to are simply mistaken. Unfortunately, it's simply not the case that when you change something that the result is entirely dependent on the thing you changed. As humans we want to form opinions but opinions turn into beliefs and this can be problematic because we're too stupid (myself included) to be able to understand something as complex as an audio system in it's entirety. That's what makes it interesting as well. I think more people in the audio industry understand this, because it takes some experience and opportunities to simply be wrong that doing it for a living can provide. I'm also into cars and it's similar... experienced mechanics will rarely tell you anything for certain.

 

[pjwd]

experienced mechanics will rarely tell you anything for certain.

Yes... beware of the "sole possessor of the flat truth" ( Saul Bellows)
At least in acoustics there are some first principals that are easy to grasp (with a a bit of work) and allow you to differentiate between advisors or products unlike other areas such as errr cables
Phil

 

[Al M.]

Yup, I totally agree.

There are a fair share of folks who discount expertise, education and experience. We're seeing a lot of anti-science sentiment lately, simply because it conflicts with belief.

You seem reasonable and able to take a more nuanced view, and I think in most cases there is a wide range of qualifications of folks in a particular industry. Many people do NOT take a nuanced view and on top of that, they are totally disrespectful and will do whatever they can to try to diminish you. Against all reason they will claim their N=1 experience as fact and discount your N=1000 dataset you've accumulated over decades of professional experience. As you might guess, this can be frustrating.

Personally, I refuse to call myself an expert, I don't think it's a helpful label... but there IS experience.

In other areas there are experts by the definition of the word, but rarely in a broad sense. For example Duke is an expert on 2-way horns with a particular design ethos. But, (correct me if I'm wrong.) he may know NOTHING about building omnis like MBL. Early audio shows are a great example that being an expert in an aspect of gear design has nearly NOTHING to do with setup... either pairing equipment OR room acoustics... or AC power/cables, etc.

The other tricky aspect to audio is determination of cause and effect is complicated and a majority of folks do not have the logic to come to correct conclusions about the reasons they hear what they hear. IME at least half of the conclusions people come to are simply mistaken. Unfortunately, it's simply not the case that when you change something that the result is entirely dependent on the thing you changed. As humans we want to form opinions but opinions turn into beliefs and this can be problematic because we're too stupid (myself included) to be able to understand something as complex as an audio system in it's entirety. That's what makes it interesting as well. I think more people in the audio industry understand this, because it takes some experience and opportunities to simply be wrong that doing it for a living can provide. I'm also into cars and it's similar... experienced mechanics will rarely tell you anything for certain.

Excellent post, Dave.

 

[microstrip]

MY point was simple too many talk with only opinion and no facts. Sorry if the truth offends you.

Well, my point is that in this hobby just facts can be misleading and reductionist. We need to have a balanced view using both facts and opinions. And be assured that truth never offended me!

The high-end is a very special industry, extremely focused on the preference of small groups. IMHO we must separate solving individual cases from the general case, particularly in acoustics of small rooms. Unfortunately we have more exceptions than rules in this zone of stereo reproduction. The WBF debates are a clear proof of it.

Analogies with other industries are of little value - they have clear objectives and are well ruled, having standards and codes. The same for medical.

Surely having the views of a professional with large experience as you is a positive point. But sorry, form my experience, when we ask the professionals the more interesting and tricky questions 99% of them ignore them or hide behind the justifiable professional secret to protect their intellectual property got along the years. We can't ignore that the high-end is a very competitive field.

 

[microstrip]

Yes... beware of the "sole possessor of the flat truth" ( Saul Bellows)
At least in acoustics there are some first principals that are easy to grasp (with a a bit of work) and allow you to differentiate between advisors or products unlike other areas such as errr cables
Phil

The first principle of acoustic of small rooms is that most of what is known about room acoustics applies only to large spaces and can't be applied blindly to small rooms. The second is that professional requirements are extremely different from the stereo consumer ones. The third is that acoustic professionals deeply disagree on their objectives in small rooms, consumers can not think about pleasing all of them!

Just my view, as always please feel free to disagree!
BTW, only addressing stereo reproduction, not multichannel or HT.

 

[Bjorn]

The first principle of acoustic of small rooms is that most of what is known about room acoustics applies only to large spaces and can't be applied blindly to small rooms.

Very true and is still something that's greatly misunderstood. On a regular basis I see projects where large room acoustic ideas are applied to small rooms and the result is not good. A lot of money is being thrown out the window this way. And the clients don't know who to believe in.

 

[pjwd]

feel free to disagree

Thanks ... I disagree !
There is no doubt what is required in a concert hall is different than a listening room... a versatile hall will have a multitude of demands for speech , amplified music and acoustic music.. orchestral chamber etc. All of which need different reverb times requiring adjustable elements of some nature but the basics of separating direct sound and reflected sound and ensuring that refelected sound is correlated as much as possible with direct sound is very similar to a listening room.. its just more complex in a hall as you need a thousand or so sweet spots.
Listening rooms are different scale and issues kick in at different stages but the first principles are very similar
Phil

 

[pjwd]

Very true and is still something that's greatly misunderstood. On a regular basis I see projects where large room acoustic ideas are applied to small rooms and the result is not good. A lot of money is being thrown out the window this way. And the clients don't know who to believe in.

Bjorn
What particular ideas are you referring to

 

[Bjorn]

Bjorn
What particular ideas are you referring to

Most common is the use of reverberation measurements and the idea that it applies to small rooms. This again leads to wrong use and type of treatment.

 

[microstrip]

Thanks ... I disagree !
There is no doubt what is required in a concert hall is different than a listening room... a versatile hall will have a multitude of demands for speech , amplified music and acoustic music.. orchestral chamber etc. All of which need different reverb times requiring adjustable elements of some nature but the basics of separating direct sound and reflected sound and ensuring that refelected sound is correlated as much as possible with direct sound is very similar to a listening room.. its just more complex in a hall as you need a thousand or so sweet spots.
Listening rooms are different scale and issues kick in at different stages but the first principles are very similar
Phil

Well, probably we are diverging on semantics - what are exactly your first principles? IMHO the reflecting requirements of stereo are fundamentally different from live, but surely they obey the fundamental laws of wave reflection.

 

[sbnx]

Sound reproduction in a "small" room is a complex problem. Most acousticians can't even agree on the target. Acousticians don't seem to be aware of the importance of speaker placement or listening position. By that I mean they think that you can just put your speakers in a "reasonable" X,Y position and match the other speaker and that there would not be any difference in moving the speakers 1/2" closer or further from the MLP. This is just not true. And of course they don't see that moving a speaker 1-2mm matters. Why? Because they see the room as a series of measurements and this movement doesn't register as a large difference in the measured output. But the human ear picks this up very easily.

It is possible to find a spot for the listening position and speaker position where everything works together to make great sound. If the room is untreated at this point then there will probably be one bump (6 dB higher) in the bass somewhere , the frequency response will look rough and the reverberation time (however you define that; REW calls this Topt) will be high-ish (0.5). Adding some treatments to the room in the right places will improve these measurements and IMHO improve the sound quality.

But, different people have different preference. I think this is well illustrated by Peter's thread on "Natural Sound". Some might like the highly reverberant sound. In this case one is listening more to the room than the speakers. But if that is what they like then who am I to say that person is wrong. I personally find that when the Topt is above 0.3 the sound is acoustically noisy but that is just my preference.

So let's say you decide you want a dedicated room (or want to "fix" your current room) and are going to hire an acoustician. Hopefully the acoustician asks "How do you want it to sound"? And hopefully you can describe what you want. But then there can be some interpretation issues and you may not get exactly there in one go. It is a bit of an iterative process.

Sorry if this is a little bit of a ramble.

 

[Lagonda]

Sound reproduction in a "small" room is a complex problem. Most acousticians can't even agree on the target. Acousticians don't seem to be aware of the importance of speaker placement or listening position. By that I mean they think that you can just put your speakers in a "reasonable" X,Y position and match the other speaker and that there would not be any difference in moving the speakers 1/2" closer or further from the MLP. This is just not true. And of course they don't see that moving a speaker 1-2mm matters. Why? Because they see the room as a series of measurements and this movement doesn't register as a large difference in the measured output. But the human ear picks this up very easily.

It is possible to find a spot for the listening position and speaker position where everything works together to make great sound. If the room is untreated at this point then there will probably be one bump (6 dB higher) in the bass somewhere , the frequency response will look rough and the reverberation time (however you define that; REW calls this Topt) will be high-ish (0.5). Adding some treatments to the room in the right places will improve these measurements and IMHO improve the sound quality.

But, different people have different preference. I think this is well illustrated by Peter's thread on "Natural Sound". Some might like the highly reverberant sound. In this case one is listening more to the room than the speakers. But if that is what they like then who am I to say that person is wrong. I personally find that when the Topt is above 0.3 the sound is acoustically noisy but that is just my preference.

So let's say you decide you want a dedicated room (or want to "fix" your current room) and are going to hire an acoustician. Hopefully the acoustician asks "How do you want it to sound"? And hopefully you can describe what you want. But then there can be some interpretation issues and you may not get exactly there in one go. It is a bit of an iterative process.

Sorry if this is a little bit of a ramble.

Does the acoustician have experience with your speaker or speaker type ? I hired one of the top Florida companies when i set up my Miami system years ago, they where absolutely useless at making the room work. They focused on selling me products of their own design. After a long process with many visits and many products, bad measurements (one "expert" got fired from her job in this process) and wrong fabrication of customized motorized curtains, i cut my loses and stoped using them. In retrospect part of the problem was that they had little or no experience with building a room for a large multi-tower electrostatic speaker system, they where applying what normally worked for medium size conventional speakers. I finally obtained good results when i hired a well regarded recording studio building outfit to design a recording studio, and personally applied some of the building elements and principles to my home system.

 

[Bjorn]

If someone doesn't work with placement first (with measurements of course), and doesn't take the directivity of speaker into consideration they are quite clueless and lack basic knowledge.

 

[Al M.]

Sound reproduction in a "small" room is a complex problem. Most acousticians can't even agree on the target. Acousticians don't seem to be aware of the importance of speaker placement or listening position. By that I mean they think that you can just put your speakers in a "reasonable" X,Y position and match the other speaker and that there would not be any difference in moving the speakers 1/2" closer or further from the MLP. This is just not true. And of course they don't see that moving a speaker 1-2mm matters. Why? Because they see the room as a series of measurements and this movement doesn't register as a large difference in the measured output. But the human ear picks this up very easily.

It is possible to find a spot for the listening position and speaker position where everything works together to make great sound. If the room is untreated at this point then there will probably be one bump (6 dB higher) in the bass somewhere , the frequency response will look rough and the reverberation time (however you define that; REW calls this Topt) will be high-ish (0.5). Adding some treatments to the room in the right places will improve these measurements and IMHO improve the sound quality.

But, different people have different preference. I think this is well illustrated by Peter's thread on "Natural Sound". Some might like the highly reverberant sound. In this case one is listening more to the room than the speakers. But if that is what they like then who am I to say that person is wrong. I personally find that when the Topt is above 0.3 the sound is acoustically noisy but that is just my preference.

So let's say you decide you want a dedicated room (or want to "fix" your current room) and are going to hire an acoustician. Hopefully the acoustician asks "How do you want it to sound"? And hopefully you can describe what you want. But then there can be some interpretation issues and you may not get exactly there in one go. It is a bit of an iterative process.

Sorry if this is a little bit of a ramble.

Great post, no ramble at all.

To come to the defense of Peter's setup: the room acoustics in-person are not nearly as reverberant as they may seem from some of his videos.

Video reproduction is weird anyway: I once listened to the same video over the same headphones through my phone and then through my computer. The sound seemed much more reverberant through one device than the other.

That is one of several reasons why I don't post system videos. Reproduction introduces filtering that varies with the individual listener's device and thus cannot be controlled.

That is apparently one of the reasons for different opinions on a given video.

 

[Elliot G.]

Well, my point is that in this hobby just facts can be misleading and reductionist. We need to have a balanced view using both facts and opinions. And be assured that truth never offended me!

The high-end is a very special industry, extremely focused on the preference of small groups. IMHO we must separate solving individual cases from the general case, particularly in acoustics of small rooms. Unfortunately we have more exceptions than rules in this zone of stereo reproduction. The WBF debates are a clear proof of it.

Analogies with other industries are of little value - they have clear objectives and are well ruled, having standards and codes. The same for medical.

Surely having the views of a professional with large experience as you is a positive point. But sorry, form my experience, when we ask the professionals the more interesting and tricky questions 99% of them ignore them or hide behind the justifiable professional secret to protect their intellectual property got along the years. We can't ignore that the high-end is a very competitive field.

I can't and wont speak about acousticians and professionals however I do know that there are some very good people that can help you with getting the most from your system. This to many is not acceptable to them for various reasons which may include their own thoughts and ego.
The proper positioning of the speakers and the listening position are not matters of opinions and so when they are not set properly everything that follows will be to solve problems that are self inflicted. Understanding how different speakers work in rooms really helps get the most out of them.
As someone that has been in the business for a long time I have found that most do not want help even if offered for free. I don't understand this but it has been my findings. There are also many times that even if we go the client has set parameters that preclude really doing the job correctly. For example I can't move the furniture and the speakers must go in this space.
This is fine for acceptable results and then living with the compromises that they self inflicted. Many then are on an endless search for the "magic" device to fix what may not have been broken but caused by the set up.
I am not claiming to be the final word or the audio guru but I do read a lot of stuff here on WBF that is just wrong and that people state as facts.
I get people all the time that ask the dimensions of my room and where the speakers are placed etc. All interesting but have no valid impact in their space. I don't make anything for saying what I am about too but I am willing to say that if you use these people you will get a significant improvement in your sound without buying anything.
Jim Smith and Stirling Trayle are both terrific at set up and analyzing your room and gear. Neither to my knowledge sells anything but their expertise and time. With the huge sums of money spent by many on this site one would think that more would invest in experts to take them to their end game.
What can happen in a home should always or almost always exceed a show. There are exceptions of course ands there are really awful rooms and not so amazing gear but for the most part the gear today is great and with some expert set up it can be marvelous sounding.
I do not agree that other industries have no parallels. I play golf with people all the time that sound like audiophiles . They read this book, they watched that video, they bought this club and that ball etc. etc. yet they are not good. When asked if they ever thought about taking lessons from a good teacher they have a blank stare. My father was a simple man and certainly no genius. He had a high school education and worked with his hands most of his life. He taught me some really important things. One of which was to research from whom you buy not just what to buy.
I believe listening like many skills can be improved and can be taught how and what to listen for. I had great mentors and teachers. Just lucky perhaps and in the right place at the right time but it matters. I thank Harry Pearson, Bill Johnson, Jon Dahlquist, Arnie Nudel, Mike Kay and others all the time, I got a post graduate education in NYC. I was able to go to Lincoln Center, Carnegie Hall both before and after, the Fillmore, MSG, Academy Of Music, My Fathers Place, The Stone Pony etc. Harry was an amazing teacher and I was lucky enough to tag along for much of the journey. At Lyric in those days everyone who was anyone came through those doors both in Audio and in the real world. Designers, musicians, Rock stars, Nobel Prize winners, Musical and Theatrical directors,. It was an education one could not pay for.
I still believe there are many that know more than me and perhaps if others were to learn from the past they would get some better results.
Enjoy

 

[sbnx]

Great post, no ramble at all.

To come to the defense of Peter's setup: the room acoustics in-person are not nearly as reverberant as they may seem from some of his videos.

Video reproduction is weird anyway: I once listened to the same video over the same headphones through my phone and then through my computer. The sound seemed much more reverberant through one device than the other.

That is one of several reasons why I don't post system videos. Reproduction introduces filtering that varies with the individual listener's device and thus cannot be controlled.

That is apparently one of the reasons for different opinions on a given video.

I want to clarify that i was not attacking Peter or saying his sound is flawed. I was just trying to use his long thread to illustrate.that different people like different things.

 

[Al M.]

I want to clarify that i was not attacking Peter or saying his sound is flawed. I was just trying to use his long thread to illustrate.that different people like different things.

Understood. I just wanted to point out that things are not necessarily what they seem on video.

 

[MadFloyd]

If only there were more people like Elliot G! Some of us are in dire need of them!

 

[sbo6]

since almost 100 percent of systems are set up incorrectly and there is a genuine lack of knowledge with how to make the most of the room and the gear why is this a surprise? I am always amazed how in audio everyone's opinion is recognized as fact and valid however question any of them about their field and they look down their nose at you.
I read a book on brain surgery last night so I can fix your issues.
I saw a you tube video and I am certainly capable of tuning the formula 1 race car.
I read a Facebook post and I am sure I can cook as well as Thomas Keller.
Damn I watch a few porn films and man I know I am the worlds greatest lover.
In audio this is the accepted course of action. I read JV or JA or RH and I saw a pic of a room in Hong Kong so mine is set up just like that one.

SO room treatments ...we don't need no stinkin' room treatments.

Because not all fields require the same amount of education and experience. I can watch a video on how to tune up my car and perform it 100% effectively, but that doesn't mean I can litigate effectively at the Supreme court via watching an episode of Law and Order.

WRT tuning one's room there are many good instructive videos on room treatment basics and of course there's a plethora of more in - depth information. Also, tools to measure are incredibly affordable and go a long way to optimal sound. Net is - a little knowledge and minimal $ go a long way in room treatment and optimal sonics. You don't need a "pro" to get quite good sound. In fact, I've heard systems in rooms designed and set up by "pros" and the result were as often as not embarrassing. As with everything in life, the more you apply yourself the more you get out of it - getting very good sound isn't brain surgery.

 

[sbnx]

There are also many times that even if we go the client has set parameters that preclude really doing the job correctly. For example I can't move the furniture and the speakers must go in this space.

There are also many times that even if we go the client has set parameters that preclude really doing the job correctly. For example I can't move the furniture and the speakers must go in this space.
This is fine for acceptable results and then living with the compromises that they self inflicted. Many then are on an endless search for the "magic" device to fix what may not have been broken but caused by the set up.

This goes along with my theory. What is the most important audio component that is essential to great sound? ................ An understanding spouse! The second most important component is an open mind.

Elliot seems unique among dealers. Most seem to want to keep their clients in the dark and keep them on that "buy the latest Rev 2 version of component X and you will be in a state of sonic bliss" merry-go-round.

This is a side topic but goes along with the theme that setup matters to the Nth degree. I can't tell you how many dealer showrooms I have visited only to be waaay disappointed in the sound. The latest was over this past Memorial day weekend. I went to visit family and while there set up an appointment to listen to a pair of Wilson XVX. I was super excited and couldn't wait to hear them. Well, they sounded bad. And not just by a little bit. I wouldn't trade what I have now for what I heard for an even trade let alone $230K more. Do I believe the XVX really sound that bad and it is all hype -- No! They sounded bad because the dealer did not have them set up correctly. But when I asked how many pairs he had sold -- 3 was the answer. Did those three people think they sounded good or better than what they currently have? I would really like to have a conversation with them about what they heard and what they thought of the XVX's in the demo.

My Uncle is moving to Florida at the end of this year. I go to see him often and one of the first visits I am going to make a trek to Elliot's (if he will have me).