The argument for/against room treatment

[stehno]

You are absolutely right, it shows that the subwoofer is not there, but my intention with the videos is to look at the acoustics of the room and the truth is that apart from entertaining me it helps me.
All my friends who like this hobby, we all started in a more orthodox way, now we have followed the totally opposite path.
I am the least advanced but I do have my treatment done by my + customizable powerful manual equalization.
We have very thick absorbent panels and we use Knauf and Dacron wool (wadding in Spain).
Personally, my absorbent panels are filled with Dacron and are between 30 and 45 cm thick, making the most of the maximum speed to locate the panels.

I leave 2 simulations where you can see a panel of 20 and 40 cm thick with Knauf and Dacron wool where there are 4 simulations depending on the resistivity to the passage of the air flow.

http://www.acousticmodelling.com/multi.php

Greetings

Nice. Now what you've just shared here is IMO the effects. Can you share the cause too? For example. An overhead view of your room layout including dimensions and where items are placed? As well as briefly describe your components, speakers, subs? Not to mention elements you may have modified / installed to address the electrical and vibration mgmt sectors?

It's rather difficult to make heads or tails of any of this without a more thorough overview of the entire playback vineyard.

Thanks,

 

[cal3713]

Similar arguments could be used to explain why we don't need any sort of fancy stereo system at all. Just any old boom box is quite good if you let you psycho acoustic capabilities fill in and correct what's missing. I immensely enjoyed listening to classical music on an am/fm shortwave single driver radio I had as a kid. Back then it never occurred to me to question it's playback fidelity. I could hear and identify the instruments and the notes they were playing, and even hear the hall reverb. My mind combined that information with what I already knew about those instruments and provided a very compelling experience. When I went to see a real orchestra, or play in one as I did, I didn't take note of the improved sound quality of the real experience because I wasn't trying to.
Now here I am as an adult and I've learned to geek out and teach myself to hear differences and delight in improving playback fidelity. There are many options because there is a lot that is inherently "wrong" with 2 channel playback in a small residential room. If you eliminate crosstalk between your left and right ears I find that to be a very compelling experience. It's amazing the cross talk doesn't sound worse than it does. You explained why that is already. Our brain largely corrects for it. But when it's gone, wow that's a nice improvement. Unfortunately the apparatus required for that is too difficult to live with for me so I have abandoned that idea although still find it an intriguing example of further possibilities. Treating first reflections changes the sound. It can be a very nice effect depending on how you do it. You may decide it's not that important and let your brain do the correction work. But it can be nicer if your brain doesn't have to. Room effects are filtered by our psycho acoustic system, but imperfectly. You can notice the difference in a different room very quickly if you are inclined to listen for and enjoy such differences.

The more work your brain does, the more listening feels like work.

 

[stehno]

The more work your brain does, the more listening feels like work.

Very profound and excellent point. And from so many angles too.

Philosophy major?

 

[hemiutut]

Nice. Now what you've just shared here is IMO the effects. Can you share the cause too? For example. An overhead view of your room layout including dimensions and where items are placed? As well as briefly describe your components, speakers, subs? Not to mention elements you may have modified / installed to address the electrical and vibration mgmt sectors?

It's rather difficult to make heads or tails of any of this without a more thorough overview of the entire playback vineyard.

Thanks,

I live in a flat and I have to reconcile my hobby with family life. For the moment I will anticipate that the audios that I have put are from a room of only 9 meters and with very economical components.
But I can say that the change is from day to night compared to the equipment I have in the dining room.

I leave a photo of a fan who uses Dacron as an absorbent material.

If I put photos of my room and say the components, I can take something from more than one
I advance that those audios that I have put are using a Samsung A7 2018 mobile as a source and I use the Neutron player app with its parametric eq.
I have made 3 custom presets to do some tests in my room, since I use the source mobile + DAC UCA202
I am amazed at the power they have put into the parametric equalization. In my case I do measurements with the Room EQ Wizard and I do the manual EQ using the RTA.

Written with Google translator.

Greetings

 

[cal3713]

Very profound and excellent point. And from so many angles too.

Philosophy major?

Thanks. A scientist... https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=NQGcNPQAAAAJ&hl=en

 

[hemiutut]

Since this thread is about acoustic treatment, I recommend this engineer's channel where he is perfectly understood with his short and well explained videos.

I have to say that I am an amateur like most of us who like to see it being featured on audio forums.

Greetings

 

[stehno]

Since this thread is about acoustic treatment, I recommend this engineer's channel where he is perfectly understood with his short and well explained videos.

I have to say that I am an amateur like most of us who like to see it being featured on audio forums.

Greetings

So sad to see so many exude so much faith for all this, errrr, ummmm,... stuff. Oh, well. Today was a pretty good day.

 

[Cellcbern]

So sad to see so many exude so much faith for all this, errrr, ummmm,... stuff. Oh, well. Today was a pretty good day.

Curious - which "stuff" have you tried in your listening room and found it not to result in an improvement?

 

[stehno]

Curious - which "stuff" have you tried in your listening room and found it not to result in an improvement?

Isn't that a bit like asking me, when did I stop beating my wife?

Which aftermarket stuff do you think I need to improve my sound?

 

[Cellcbern]

Isn't that a bit like asking me, when did I stop beating my wife?

Which aftermarket stuff do you think I need to improve my sound?

Straightforward question - have you actually tried acoustical treatments in your listening room, and if so which ones?

 

[stehno]

Straightforward question - have you actually tried acoustical treatments in your listening room, and if so which ones?

Straightforward answer. We've already established that room acoustic treatments could include most anything including typical room furishings. For which my answer is yes. However, if you're alluding to aftermarket "stuff", then almost zero experience.

Straightforward questions.

1. Do you think my answering no implies that I don't know what I'm doing or perhaps that I know little / nothing about assembling a musical playback system because I've no need for aftermarket acoustic treatments?

2. When I jumped in this thread a while back claiming that if we instead focused on the cause (our system's deficiencies and inferior speaker/sub placement) rather than the effects (room acoustic treatments), did you give any consideration at least from a fundamental / logical perspective, my strategy might have some/any merit? Or do you think I'm just foolish because I'm not following the herd?

3. When I demonstrated a few posts ago an in-room video side-by-side to the official youtube direct stream version, did that give you any indication that I do/don't know what I'm talking about? Or did you not trouble yourself to listen?

4. When I said on several occasions, how many times must one fly to the moon to prove it can be done (without aftermarket room acoustic treatements), did none of that register with you? Especially when so few are willing to pony up any evidence themselves demonstrating otherwise?

5. Are you implying that a reasonable-enough room is insufficient and everybody must go down these acoustic treatment rabbit holes?

6. At what point do some of you actually listen critically to an in-room recording and compre it to the offical youtube direct stream version to determine whether or not somebody knows what they are talking about? Better yet, when is the last time some of you created your own in-room recording just for your own edification and compare that the official track on youtube?

 

[Cellcbern]

Straightforward answer. We've already established that room acoustic treatments could include most anything including typical room furishings. For which my answer is yes. However, if you're alluding to aftermarket "stuff", then almost zero experience.

Straightforward questions.

1. Do you think my answering no implies that I don't know what I'm doing or perhaps that I know little / nothing about assembling a musical playback system because I've no need for aftermarket acoustic treatments?

2. When I jumped in this thread a while back claiming that if we instead focused on the cause (our system's deficiencies and inferior speaker/sub placement) rather than the effects (room acoustic treatments), did you give any consideration at least from a fundamental / logical perspective, my strategy might have some/any merit? Or do you think I'm just foolish because I'm not following the herd?

3. When I demonstrated a few posts ago an in-room video side-by-side to the official youtube direct stream version, did that give you any indication that I do/don't know what I'm talking about? Or did you not trouble yourself to listen?

4. When I said on several occasions, how many times must one fly to the moon to prove it can be done (without aftermarket room acoustic treatements), did none of that register with you? Especially when so few are willing to pony up any evidence themselves demonstrating otherwise?

5. Are you implying that a reasonable-enough room is insufficient and everybody must go down these acoustic treatment rabbit holes?

6. At what point do some of you actually listen critically to an in-room recording and compre it to the offical youtube direct stream version to determine whether or not somebody knows what they are talking about? Better yet, when is the last time some of you created your own in-room recording just for your own edification and compare that the official track on youtube?

Furniture, draperies, carpets, and other room furnishings can be helpful but have a fraction of the acoustical impact of purpose designed/built room treatments.

1. I think that no one can be credible posting about the efficacy or value of room treatments when they have no direct experience with them. And if you haven't tried them how do you know whether or not you need them?
2. I think your causes/effects premise is faulty, which of course impacts all of your posts that follow.
3. You have demonstrated only that two different videos sounded different.
4. "Fly to the moon"? Not sure what you are talking about. Why do people have to "pony up evidence"? I was under the impression that on a forum like this people would share their experiences and other forum members would decide to learn from them or not, experiment with what others have tried or not. It never occurred to me that any poster would need to "prove" something to another.
5. I'm not implying anything. I am stating very clearly that in my experience no amount of intelligent equipment selection and placement can eliminate the negative impact of reflected sound, and that every listening room can be improved with skillful deployment of acoustical treatments. That doesn't mean that an untreated room cannot sound good or that anyone should feel pressured to add acoustical treatments if they are satisfied with their room's sound without them. It is the individual audiophile's choice to use acoustical treatments or not.
6. At no point will I compare in room recordings with Youtube versions because a) neither has the fidelity to resolve the sonic nuances of room configurations and treatments, and b) I have no interest in doing so since I have nothing to prove to anyone.

 

[treitz3]

Gentlemen...

Hello and good evening to you all. We all love a good discussion, especially one in which we all share a deep passion for. With that said, let's keep the conversation cordial, shall we?

There is no need for snide commentary or personal attacks (and they go against our TOS).

Carry on....(politely please and thank you for the post editing)

Tom

 

[stehno]

Furniture, draperies, carpets, and other room furnishings can be helpful but have a fraction of the acoustical impact of purpose designed/built room treatments.

Well, if we don't think we should substantiate our words, then words become rather cheap, don't they? There are some-to-many who deliberately take advantage of not thinking they ought to substantiate their claims. Not saying you but they do exist and they 're called paper tigers. Because nobody holds them accountable for their words. Every industry and hobby have such levels of accountability, why would anybody think high-end audio ought to be the exception? Especially when it's an audio-only industry where words really ought to mean nothing in comparison.

1. I think that no one can be credible posting about the efficacy or value of room treatments (or anything) they have no direct experience with.

I already assumed that.

And if you haven't tried them how do you know whether or not you need them?

Because I employ a rather unique technology that seemingly allows my components and line conditioners to perform far closer to their optimal performance levels rather than closer to their base performance levels. The results are presumably a significantly lowered noise floor than usual. Such that far more of the music info read from the recording and processed remains audible at the speaker. As such, it seems with this additional music info remaining audible, incuding additional volumes of ambient info from the recording from the live performance, my playback presentation does not fight toe-to-toe with the listening room's acoustics but instead completely overshadows them.

Additionally, I go through great pains to acoustically couple my speakers and subs to the room thus greatly lowering a second noise floor of an acoustic nature. If done well, this too helps minimize / eliminate any potential need for acoustic treatments. Based of course on the playback presentation's levels of musicality,

2. I think your causes/effects premise is faulty, which of course impacts all of your posts that follow.

From your perspective I understand. But again, you need to know that no amount of acoustic treatments can remedy music info rendered inaudible by the noise floors mentioned above. The technology simply doesn't exist. For your own edification (not us) you really should try making your own in-room recording to be played back via headphones from your smartphone or computer. Then search for that same official release on Youtube that by-passes your system and room and goes straight to your headphones. It's actually a pretty good barometer. You will never know what your system really sounds like based on the consensus of those around you.

3. You have demonstrated only that two different videos sounded different.

If you didn't listen, then aren't you just guessing / reaching?

4. "Fly to the moon"? Not sure what you are talking about. Why do people have to "pony up evidence"? I was under the impression that on a forum like this people would share their experiences and other forum members would decide to learn from them or not, experiment with what others have tried or not. It never occurred to me that any poster would need to "prove" something to another.

Because we all should be able to substantiate our claims. Otherwise, how can we tell which orifice we're speaking out of? Frankly, I'm a bit shocked that you would ask such a question. Performance is not never derived by a consensus of words, well, except in high-end audio. Besides, would you rather take my word for something even though you don't know me from Adam? Or vice versa? I can tell you why but I can't make you understand why.

5. I'm not implying anything. I am stating very clearly that in my experience no amount of intelligent equipment selection and placement can eliminate the negative impact of reflected sound, and that every listening room can be improved with skillful deployment of acoustical treatments. That doesn't mean that an untreated room cannot sound good or that anyone should feel pressured to add acoustical treatments if they are satisfied with their room's sound without them. It is the individual audiophile's choice to use acoustical treatments or not.

Indeed. But is not your experience just as potentially limited as most of us? But again, you're most likely assuming we're all exactly alike in our walk and journey. If that were true, then you might have a case.

6. At no point will I compare in room recordings with Youtube versions because a) neither has the fidelity to resolve the sonic nuances of room configurations and treatments, and b) I have no interest in doing so since I have nothing to prove to anyone.

Really? I'll be the first to admit in-room recordings are limited and only able to share a remnant of what transpires in the listening room. But the remnant preserved is significant. An in-room recording can never illustrate everything going on in the listening room but frankly I'm amazed at how well some rather significant sonic characteristics are preserved.

I've yet to hear any playback system, including SOTA-level, that don't require our using some imagination to fill in some-to-many blanks. In-room recordings just take a bit more imagination and I'm quite confident we've all got the experience to do this.

Case in point. Below is a 2 min recording of a rather torturous classical piece. The kind that make exhibitors cringe at audio shows because of the break-up and flattening out it will induce on even the very best SOTA-level systems. This is on my extremely humble but hopefully very-well-thought-out playback system. Not only should you hear little-to-no break-up or flattening out if you listened with headphones, but it might add some credibility that I'm also playing this in the listening room at well over 100 db which I doubt anybody else would dare try. That's how incredibly well in-room recordings can retain certain fidelity. And I'm just using a $150 mic attached to my iPhone. But you do have to listen to get even a glimpse of what I'm talking about.

Oh, yeah. Since I've no aftermarket acoustic treatments, try to listen for my room's many acoustic anomalies overshadowing the performance.

 

[Cellcbern]

Well, if we don't think we should substantiate our words, then words become rather cheap, don't they? There are some-to-many who deliberately take advantage of not thinking they ought to substantiate their claims. Not saying you but they do exist and they 're called paper tigers. Because nobody holds them accountable for their words. Every industry and hobby have such levels of accountability, why would anybody think high-end audio ought to be the exception? Especially when it's an audio-only industry where words really ought to mean nothing in comparison.


I already assumed that.


Because I employ a rather unique technology that seemingly allows my components and line conditioners to perform far closer to their optimal performance levels rather than closer to their base performance levels. The results are presumably a significantly lowered noise floor than usual. Such that far more of the music info read from the recording and processed remains audible at the speaker. As such, it seems with this additional music info remaining audible, incuding additional volumes of ambient info from the recording from the live performance, my playback presentation does not fight toe-to-toe with the listening room's acoustics but instead completely overshadows them.

Additionally, I go through great pains to acoustically couple my speakers and subs to the room thus greatly lowering a second noise floor of an acoustic nature. If done well, this too helps minimize / eliminate any potential need for acoustic treatments. Based of course on the playback presentation's levels of musicality,


From your perspective I understand. But again, you need to know that no amount of acoustic treatments can remedy music info rendered inaudible by the noise floors mentioned above. The technology simply doesn't exist. For your own edification (not us) you really should try making your own in-room recording to be played back via headphones from your smartphone or computer. Then search for that same official release on Youtube that by-passes your system and room and goes straight to your headphones. It's actually a pretty good barometer. You will never know what your system really sounds like based on the consensus of those around you.


If you didn't listen, then aren't you just guessing / reaching?


Because we all should be able to substantiate our claims. Otherwise, how can we tell which orifice we're speaking out of? Frankly, I'm a bit shocked that you would ask such a question. Performance is not never derived by a consensus of words, well, except in high-end audio. Besides, would you rather take my word for something even though you don't know me from Adam? Or vice versa? I can tell you why but I can't make you understand why.


Indeed. But is not your experience just as potentially limited as most of us? But again, you're most likely assuming we're all exactly alike in our walk and journey. If that were true, then you might have a case.


Really? I'll be the first to admit in-room recordings are limited and only able to share a remnant of what transpires in the listening room. But the remnant preserved is significant. An in-room recording can never illustrate everything going on in the listening room but frankly I'm amazed at how well some rather significant sonic characteristics are preserved.

I've yet to hear any playback system, including SOTA-level, that don't require our using some imagination to fill in some-to-many blanks. In-room recordings just take a bit more imagination and I'm quite confident we've all got the experience to do this.

Case in point. Below is a 2 min recording of a rather torturous classical piece. The kind that make exhibitors cringe at audio shows because of the break-up and flattening out it will induce on even the very best SOTA-level systems. This is on my extremely humble but hopefully very-well-thought-out playback system. Not only should you hear little-to-no break-up or flattening out if you listened with headphones, but it might add some credibility that I'm also playing this in the listening room at well over 100 db which I doubt anybody else would dare try. That's how incredibly well in-room recordings can retain certain fidelity. And I'm just using a $150 mic attached to my iPhone. But you do have to listen to get even a glimpse of what I'm talking about.

Oh, yeah. Since I've no aftermarket acoustic treatments, try to listen for my room's many acoustic anomalies overshadowing the performance.

Nothing to add to the comments I've already made.

 

[stehno]

Nothing to add to the comments I've already made.

That's fine. But you asked earlier, what did I mean by flying to the moon and that little demo at the end was me flying to the moon. And back again.

Demonstrating, among other things, that aftermarket room acoustic treatments ought not be a requirement and that in-room recordings provide potentially significant value.