It was not my expression originally, so I defer to our recording engineers and acousticians for a technical definition.
The argument for/against room treatment
- Thread starter MadFloyd
- Start date
It was not my expression originally, so I defer to our recording engineers and acousticians for a technical definition.
I found that once I removed the after-market audiophile room acoustic treatments from the room, I had to revisit speaker positioning to regain some of positives I heard with room treatments while at the same time retaining what I had gained by their removal.
I think speaker type, position and orientation in the room play a much more important role than has discussed here so far. Dispersion patterns, orientation and position all affect the balance and intensity of reflections. Finding a pleasing balance seems to be the key. Without the room treatment, it took me much more time and effort to be satisfied with my speaker location and resulting sound, but in the end the result is more satisfying.
Even with professionally designed rooms, some chose to listen in the nearfield to lesson the impact of the room and increase the direct sound from the speakers. MikeL and Steve W seem to both now be listening pretty much in near field to large speakers. They both report a very immersive experience.
Here is an example of how speaker type, positioning and orientation can work to get good results in a poor room: member ddk's second listening room. Note the lack of treatments in this small room with large speakers. David discusses the importance of speaker and listening seat positioning: https://www.whatsbestforum.com/thre...-too-listening-room-2-near-field-setup.15583/
I think speaker type, position and orientation in the room play a much more important role than has discussed here so far. Dispersion patterns, orientation and position all affect the balance and intensity of reflections. Finding a pleasing balance seems to be the key. Without the room treatment, it took me much more time and effort to be satisfied with my speaker location and resulting sound, but in the end the result is more satisfying.
Even with professionally designed rooms, some chose to listen in the nearfield to lesson the impact of the room and increase the direct sound from the speakers. MikeL and Steve W seem to both now be listening pretty much in near field to large speakers. They both report a very immersive experience.
Here is an example of how speaker type, positioning and orientation can work to get good results in a poor room: member ddk's second listening room. Note the lack of treatments in this small room with large speakers. David discusses the importance of speaker and listening seat positioning: https://www.whatsbestforum.com/thre...-too-listening-room-2-near-field-setup.15583/
My interesting results on changed perspective of sound from tt with new motor, to a slightly drier, more detailed but also altered tonal density on some challenging recordings, is inspiring me to play around with room treatments and spkrs positioning. In reality it's mainly revealing the shortcomings in SQ of some of my rock recordings, and likely tonal balance of my arm/cart, but checking room acoustics treatments also makes sense.
First thing to try are some PET boards as diffusers on eaves at reflection points. Then I'll trial greater amounts of diffusion/absorption balance on front wall and side wall reflection points.
First thing to try are some PET boards as diffusers on eaves at reflection points. Then I'll trial greater amounts of diffusion/absorption balance on front wall and side wall reflection points.
Last edited:
Others' posts are more interesting than this one, but if you want to experience a fully damped room and probably the next most quiet environment to the unechoic chamber, pay a visit to an audiologist for a hearing test, and they will put you in that special unechoic booth and shut that heavy door; you will be able to hear your heartbeat. You don't want an environment like that.
Perhaps there are rooms with characteristics that obviate the need for acoustical treatments. But In 40+ years as an audiophile and music lover I have never experienced an untreated room that couldn't benefit from acoustical treatments, a recording studio or mastering lab that didn't have them, or a purpose built concert hall that didn't have them designed/built in. If a room has walls it has reflective surfaces which overlay the room's sound on the audio system's (or live performers') sound. How much and what type of treatment is a function of the room's characteristics. The fact that individuals haven't succeeded at getting acoustical treatments to improve the sound in particular rooms doesn't change that.
Last edited:
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
David probably meant a vocal booth, we had many that could not do the vocal booth for long before feeling uncomfortable, you can hear your own heartbeat and space is also limited.
Vocal booth, yes, I've seen many that are totally padded (padded room? LOL) I even have one. Has 1 inch 703 fiberglass on walls/ceiling with a thick area rug on the floor. That's the ONLY place I'd want that!
I had gone into a few sound recording sessions with both my uncle (jazz muso) and my other uncle who did film work and also voice-overs in film doco production when I was in high school and the trip into a sound booth was always a spin.David probably meant a vocal booth, we had many that could not do the vocal booth for long before feeling uncomfortable, you can hear your own heartbeat and space is also limited.
Then later my first job was in a tv station and I always remember the shift in the soundfield when you shut the doors behind going into a sound booth to do a mic check or walk through the read with the talent... always a bit better with headphones on because you were engaged in the output of the mic but the room itself always set up a disconnect.
Last edited:
Yes, not a natural fit for a living room... and the padded walls is not always a good look either way
Last edited:
The people for and against on this thread don't argue vehemently enough
www.theonion.com
Hundreds Killed In Brutal Pro-Something-Anti-Something Clash
Hear how public demonstration and counter-demonstrations have been sparked by renewed vows from pro-something leaders to get the thing they want, which is the complete opposite thing that anti-something leaders want.
www.theonion.com
As stated elsewhere in this thread, every last room is somehow or somewhat treated. Though I'm a pretty firm believer in carpeting and pad and a listening chair, I'm pretty confident the rest, including a custom room is mostly hype, misinformation, and/or downright folklore. And I think it's relatively easy to prove.
Yes, speakers need room to breath (disperse sound) and speaker positioning is absolutely paramount for lower regions of the frequency spectrum but these things are universally true for all regardless.
That's not to say that some improvements can't be had with additional treatments and/or custom-designed rooms. That's to say it's really unnecessarily (the room and its acoustics is a far cry from being the most important component) especially when there are simpler alternatives like genuinely lowering a playback system's noise floor such that what's audible at the speaker is so overwhelming, it completely overshadows a room's acoustic anomalies. Well, for some anyway.
Last edited:
Over damping can negatively impact system transparency. Are classical concert halls fully damped?
Last edited:
Fully damped to me is an anechoic chamber. So I would say no average listen room or performance space is fully damped. They are all partially damped.
Rob
Rob
We can't compare a concert hall to even a large (say 30' by 25') listening room. The former has no modal issues and reflections are very late and diffuse. The latter will need some acoustic treatment (absorption and diffusion) if we want to extract the full extent from the system. Without treatment there will be compromises made in the sound somewhere. I am not saying you will need wall to wall absorbers but rather 20-30% coverage will suffice.
Not sure where to start with this. Regarding "hype and misinformation". I don't think it is so much misinformation. Rather most of the acoustics stuff you see online are from pro-audio/studio recording. This is a very different case than a dedicated listening room. The recording studio doesn't have the luxury of getting to choose where to simply put one pair of speakers and a chair. They have to accommodate a vocalist, guitar, drums etc. So the studio people tend to have much more treatment in order to flatten the response of the room. Unfortunately, it is mostly the same studio people who are advising audiophiles on how to treat a room.
You mention lowering the noise floor of the electronics. Most electronics already has a S/N ration that is at least -80dB. In a non-dedicated room (such as a living room) there is a lot of noise we would have to listen through that is much higher in level than the electronics. In an untreated room there are going to be pretty wild swings in the frequency response and it is easy to get more than +/- 10dB of "error". Why would this be less important than getting a piece of electronics with -90dB of noise?
I have a reasonable sized, dedicated room with quite a bit of treatment. I have also set up a system in my living room with almost no treatment. And I have set up a few room with varying levels of treatment. They all sound different. There is no way I would choose to get rid of the dedicated/treated room and listen in the living room.
Sounds reasonable. My bias. I've always preferred livelier rooms over the alternative.
You forgot folklore.
Many don't. That doesn't mean it's not true.
You mean where many times studios install their monitors as somewhat of an after thought? Or even with little or no thought? In stark contrast with at least some high-end audio enthusiasts who painstakingly take months or even years attempting to get things just right. Not that they necessarily do get things right, but at least there's the attempt to perform some type of due diligence.
To the best of my knowledge, S/N ratios have little/nothing directly to do with a playback system's noise floor. You're speaking of noise and I'm speaking of a playback system's noise floor. We're talking apples and oranges. To the best of my knowlege, the noise floor I'm speaking of is inaudible but can actually make doube-digit percentages of music info read in from the recording become inaudible by the time it reaches the speaker. IOW, your point here should be irrelevant.
Regardless, you seem unable to discern the difference between audible noise and a given playback system's noise floor not to mention their potentially great sonic impact differences. If so, then your point here should also be irrelevant. They are almost if not entirely unrelated where one is potentially minor impact and annoying and the other potentially quite major like say 20 -40% of the music info remaining inaudible. But again, we're talking apples and oranges here and in a big way.
IME when a playback system's noise floor is dramatically / significantly lowered and so much more music info, especially the volumes of ambient info (the lowest of low-level detail), is pouring out of the speakers, the music presentation will almost and I'd even venture to say entirely overshadow all room acoustic anomalies such that it's impossible to hear the room at all. Because at this level one's listening perspective is now somewhere in the recording hall - even if it's by the public restrooms. IOW if a given playback system's noise floor is drastically lowered, the room is all but gone, including most/all of its acoustic anomalies.
More importantly, the technology does not exist to replace or correct missing music info (induced by a much raised noise floor), least of all custom rooms and/or room accoustic treatments. Even the opening notes of this poorly-engineered 1960's track should help demonstrate my point to some degree. Hence, I suspect all this talk of rooms and acoustic treatments is a combination of hype, misinformation, and ultmiately folklore.
Well depends on what you consider room treatment. As an example a well stuffed sofa and a heavy rug acts as room treatment. It helps damp and absorb portions of the frequency spectrum. So some may say they don't use room treatment when in actuality they are and don't realize it. When you say room treatment some automatically jump to dedicated absorbers and diffusers and skip over furnishings.
When you listen to live music you also hear room reflections from the performance space. I really enjoy headphones for the convenience of taking music with me where ever I go. I prefer speakers though for listening at home.
This is a very complex issue and you can get really good sound by using furnishings and speaker placement on their own without resorting to expensive room treatments. I also think it can be done without "room correction". It also depends on you room. Some are really good others down right suck. If you are lucky to have a good room you are more than halfway there and makes good results with minimal treatment a lot easier.
Rob
Well depends on what you consider room treatment. As an example a well stuffed sofa and a heavy rug acts as room treatment. It helps damp and absorb portions of the frequency spectrum. So some may say they don't use room treatment when in actuality they are and don't realize it. When you say room treatment some automatically jump to dedicated absorbers and diffusers and skip over furnishings.
When you listen to live music you also hear room reflections from the performance space. I really enjoy headphones for the convenience of taking music with me where ever I go. I prefer speakers though for listening at home.
This is a very complex issue and you can get really good sound by using furnishings and speaker placement on their own without resorting to expensive room treatments. I also think it can be done without "room correction". It also depends on you room. Some are really good others down right suck. If you are lucky to have a good room you are more than halfway there and makes good results with minimal treatment a lot easier.
Rob
Rob, this is a wonderful post. I am fortunate to have a pretty good room for audio, despite its small size, poor proportions and low ceiling. I had many added acoustic room treatments for years convinced that they helped. I certainly enjoyed their effect. They altered the sound by absorbing certain frequencies and scattering others, and this became the sound I preferred.
The room is full of furniture including a large leather sofa, two small chairs, and an oriental carpet. I replaced the standard glass with heavy tempered glass in my true-divided 6/6 window sashes in our historic home. The window openings are covered by blinds with adjustable wooden slats.
About a year ago, I spent much time experimenting with speaker placement and toe-in orientation and removing a few then more of the audiophile acoustic room treatments from the room. Then I brought some of the treatments back. I played with the effects of shifting them around and finally settled on their complete removal. I also played with the angles of the wooden slats over the windows and removed the glass from the framed artwork on the walls.
A year later, the room is less damped and full of energy. Reflections are somewhat controlled by speaker placement and orientation. I much prefer the sound. Room treatments come in many forms, furniture among them. People like all sorts of different types of sounds. I suspect some rooms need dedicated acoustic treatments added and some people simply like the effects, as I did. I have also visited a couple of rooms that had great sound with nothing but carefully positioned speakers and furniture. I agree with you that it is a complex issue.
Similar threads
