The argument for/against room treatment

[stehno]

Hello Stheno

I suggest you read Floyd Tooles book on Sound Reproduction. He explains it much better than I could hope too.

As far as headphones it is my personal preference. They just don't do it for me.

Rob

Why do you suggest I read Floyd Toole's book? Anything specific? I've watched several of Toole's more lengthy videos but it's been a few years. In the meantime, how about a few thoughts of your own here with at least a tad of detail?

BTW, don't know what your talking about regarding headphone as I never referenced them.

 

[microstrip]

Hello Stheno

I suggest you read Floyd Tooles book on Sound Reproduction. He explains it much better than I could hope too.

As far as headphones it is my personal preference. They just don't do it for me.

Rob

I have read the F. Toole book. Can you tell what is your exact point?

 

[sbo6]

Unless your system is in an extraordinarily large room where room reflections don't interfere with the speakers' direct sound then you need some form of room treatment if you want an optimal listening experience. Since 99.999% of us don't have such a room virtually all rooms need room treatment.

 

[sbo6]

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.

Couldn't have said it better, 110% agree.

 

[advanced101]

I have had trouble implementing acoustic treatments in my room without a lot of experimenting. I have bought many different types of absorbers, diffusers, mixtures of the two, stillpoints, etc. I have begun building my own to get the right mix that I prefer in different positions of the room. I have built each position a little different. In my long and narrow (14') room, getting the sidewall reflection treatments to both create a tight center image while creating a wide sound stage has been the biggest challenge.

 

[sbo6]

I have had trouble implementing acoustic treatments in my room without a lot of experimenting. I have bought many different types of absorbers, diffusers, mixtures of the two, stillpoints, etc. I have begun building my own to get the right mix that I prefer in different positions of the room. I have built each position a little different. In my long and narrow (14') room, getting the sidewall reflection treatments to both create a tight center image while creating a wide sound stage has been the biggest challenge.

You are not alone. That, along with managing low frequencies is what I've found in treating rooms to be the biggest challenges. When in doubt, I recommend absorption at the first reflection points since most rooms aren't very wide and the delta between the direct and first reflection ear arrival is commonly ~<10msec and as such, messes up imaging, sound stage width and overall clarity. Once you begin to find the right balance between speaker placement and sweet spot placement, you can try to add diffusion. I personally find first reflection diffusion to not work well (unless your speakers are far from the side walls) and abfusion a better choice. If you DIY like I do BAD panels or a variation of BAD panels offer great options for first reflections.

 

[stehno]

Unless your system is in an extraordinarily large room where room reflections don't interfere with the speakers' direct sound then you need some form of room treatment if you want an optimal listening experience.

Indeed needing some form of room treatment is the long-standing rumor. From a common sensical perspective, I'd imagine that walls, floors, and ceilings will interact or "interfere" with any sound generated live or playback. It is the nature of sound and acousics. Whether it be a football stadium, a large gymnasium, a 2-car garage, or a walk-in-closet.

Since 99.999% of us don't have such a room virtually all rooms need room treatment.

Again, that is the long-standing rumor but perhaps it's not a rumor for some as I'm confident this so-called need for room treatment is dependent entirely on a given playback system and its level of musicality / resolution. If such a need exists at all, then it must be for playback systems that are not very musical / resolving.

Moreover, when a playback system is not very resolving it makes little sense to me to turn one's attention toward room acoustics when clearly attention is needed for the playback system. In fact, I get the impression many would rather spend their resources on the effects rather than the cause.

But such statements should include some qualification as it was already expressed that every last room is already "treated" to some degree, even if it only has carpet and pad. It's slightly more treated if a chair and ottoman is installed, etc, etc. So perhaps the term "room treatments" needs some sort of qualification.

Other concerns when discussing room treatments might include:

1. Every room is different and will sound different.

2. Every speaker is different and will sound different.

3. Every room/speaker combination is different and will sound different.

4. Listening volume levels. Seems like there's plenty who prefer elevator music volumes levels in which case not much of anything really matters. At the other end are those like me who prefer listening at or near live music performance levels and if room treatments were the bees knees, it should be for these type. Regardless, it helps to know when somebody comes from these perspectives.

5. Everybody has different levels of hearing abilities as well as different abilities to discern / interpret what they hear. For example. One with a touch of tinnitus in one ear might overly complain about certain torturous music pieces breaking up or flattening out on that side of the room or from that speaker. Another example could be someone claiming to be hearing first reflections from certain points and it's entirely possible they are speaking inaccurately.

6. Like fingerprints, no two playback systems will ever sound identical. Even if the 2 systems are identical in every way and perhaps if they were set up in identical rooms and identical positions.

7. At least for the lower frequencies and superior bass, speaker positioning is absolutely paramount. Not everybody gets this and those that do get this will get this to varying degrees.

8. The one concern that nobody seems to mention is a given playback system and it's level of musicality / resolution and how it may factor into any such supposed need.

9. Perhaps as important as any is speaker placement and how inferior positioning of a speaker can wreak havoc on the bass as well as the overall playback presentation.

Anyway, I would think for anybody to be even close to being on similar pages or at least for those who swear by "room treatments" and/or custom rooms at least some of these variables / qualifiers should be important considerations. Especially in audio forum threads where others cannot hear what we hear, yet I rarely if ever hear anybody discuss any of matters like these. At the very least it would serve us well to consider qualifiers like these and others important variables if one deems room acoustic treatments as a requirement. Hopefully nobody is saying with regard to treatments that one size fits all. If the solution is variable then why isn't the need variable too? Instead, we just have others like yourself saying it's a requirement. Period. And not taking into consideration any very real and potentially significant variables almost as if these variable have no impact.

In contrast, I've focused all of my time and attention toward dealing with the cause rather than the effects, so I really don't have any such concerns. Hence, IME the need for room treatments in a reasonable room or even the need for custom rooms that include room treatments is for the most part fallacious if not downright folklore. That's not to say that a little treatment here or there to better tune a room isn't worthwhile but even that's a far cry from an absolute requirement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm compelled to ask those who think room acoustic treatments / custom rooms as a necessity. Is it at all possible that room acoustic treatments in general don't actually make a playback system hence its playback presentation more musical (how could they?), but rather they only make an already less-than-pleasing playback presentation less fatiguing / more tolerable / more pleasing? That's my hunch. And if possible, might not such a strategy be kinda' bass ackwards?

 

[Al M.]

Again, that is the long-standing rumor but perhaps it's not a rumor for some as I'm confident this so-called need for room treatment is dependent entirely on a given playback system and its level of musicality / resolution. If such a need exists at all, then it must be for playback systems that are not very musical / resolving.

(emphasis added)

Quite the opposite.

Uncontrolled room reflections can blur and distort the signal, and in the process severely reduce perceived resolution of the system as the sound reaches the ear.

Therefore, getting room acoustics right is much more important for high resolution systems than for low resolution ones. A boombox doesn't really care much which room it plays in -- it will never get beyond a certain basic level of resolution regardless of acoustics. A high resolution system does.

Why do you think concert hall acoustics are important for high quality sound of symphonic instruments, and why the great concert halls of this world are famous for their acoustics, much more than for their looks?

Acoustics are much less important for a wedding band venue.

 

[KeithR]

I've never heard a basic room with first reflections, diffusion in the rear, and some suitable bass trapping (unless your room sucks bass like mine) sound worse than the alternative. and if you have a lowish ceiling, some treatment up there will be more important than the rest.

granted, some people go crazy and install too much trapping/absorption. just clap your hands and see.

 

[PeterA]

(emphasis added)

Quite the opposite.

Uncontrolled room reflections can blur and distort the signal, and in the process severely reduce perceived resolution of the system as the sound reaches the ear.

Therefore, getting room acoustics right is much more important for high resolution systems than for low resolution ones. A boombox doesn't really care much which room it plays in -- it will never get beyond a certain basic level of resolution regardless of acoustics. A high resolution system does.

Why do you think concert hall acoustics are important for high quality sound of symphonic instruments, and why the great concert halls of this world are famous for their acoustics, much more than for their looks?

Acoustics are much less important for a wedding band venue.

Al, do you think it may be possible to control the first reflections by speaker position and speaker typology and the speakers dispersion patterns? Or do you think controlling first reflections requires audiophile acoustic treatments like absorption or dispersion panels?

And then Stehno seems to be saying that the issue is really the system and that the cause for poor sound can ( and should) be addressed before the signal ever reaches the speaker. Pretty interesting idea.

 

[PeterA]

I've never heard a basic room with first reflections, diffusion in the rear, and some suitable bass trapping (unless your room sucks bass like mine) sound worse than the alternative. and if you have a lowish ceiling, some treatment up there will be more important than the rest.

granted, some people go crazy and install too much trapping/absorption. just clap your hands and see.

Keith, I had basic first reflection absorption (also tried diffusion there) suitable bass trappings with TubeTraps and rear diffusion in the form of adjustable wood slats over windows. I came to prefer the sound of my room with all of the audiophile treatments removed. Others might not though.

 

[Al M.]

Al, do you think it may be possible to control the first reflections by speaker position and speaker typology and the speakers dispersion patterns? Or do you think controlling first reflections requires audiophile acoustic treatments like absorption or dispersion panels?

It will depend.

And then Stehno seems to be saying that the issue is really the system and that the cause for poor sound can ( and should) be addressed before the signal ever reaches the speaker. Pretty interesting idea.

Of course, there is no contradiction. A mediocre system in a room with great acoustics will not sound any better than a great system in a mediocre room. The flaws will just be different.

You need both a high resolution system and room acoustics that are not in the way of its performance.

 

[Bobvin]

In rebuttal to Stehno, I’d rather listen to mid-fi in a good room, than hi-fi in a crap room.

 

[stehno]

(emphasis added)

Quite the opposite.

Uncontrolled room reflections can blur and distort the signal, and in the process severely reduce perceived resolution of the system as the sound reaches the ear.

Indeed. Hopefully the term reasonable comes into play somewhere. For example. Highly reflective furnishings would IMO not be considered reasonable additions.

Therefore, getting room acoustics right is much more important for high resolution systems than for low resolution ones. A boombox doesn't really care much which room it plays in -- it will never get beyond a certain basic level of resolution regardless of acoustics. A high resolution system does.

Exactly. But I kinda' thought that was my point.

Why do you think concert hall acoustics are important for high quality sound of symphonic instruments, and why the great concert halls of this world are famous for their acoustics, much more than for their looks?

For entirely different purposes actually. And hopefully it's not the same intentions between designing a concert hall and a listening room.

Acoustics are much less important for a wedding band venue.

Duly noted.

Nevertheless, I posted these two in-room videos the other day in a thread where the OP was asking if he could expect reasonable results listening to orchestral music in his smaller room. Maybe I'm out to lunch regarding the import of rooms and their acoustics but I put almost zero stock in such things. Maybe a custom room / acoustic treatment evangelist can point out the error in my ways. Perhaps with a video of their own. Come to think of it, I don't see many if any of these evangelists posting in-room videos. Go figure.

I should note these in-room videos pale in comparison to actually listening in the room. But if per chance I'm able to successfully demonstrate even via in-room videos that rooms and their acoustic treatments are for the most part unneccesary, why would others completely ignore it? IOW, how many times must one fly to the moon to prove it can be done?

Moreover, I can reproduce these levels of musicality with 50's, 60's, 70's etc pop music all day long and have done so routinely to demonstrate that the volumes of ambient info embedded in most any recording are more than sufficient to completely overshadow most any room acoustic anomalies. But for many, I purport that most of this volumes (and volumes) of ambient and other music info remain inaudible below a much raised noise floor. Hence, in those cases where the playback presentation must compete head-on with every last room accoustic anomaly, perhaps rooms and treatments are extremely important. I'm just saying it doesn't have to be that way and I suggest the more one focuses on the effects i.e. rooms and their treatments, the less they are focusing on the true cause i.e. their playback system's deficiencies and as a result they rob themselves of their own resources (time, money, etc) and tremendous enjoyment.

But again, if any of you can find flaws with these or any of my in-room videos, I'm all ears. But please don't just expect me to take one's word for it. Compared to your resources spent on rooms / acoustic treatments, producing your own in-room videos should be an absolute walk in the park if you own a smart phone.

 

[stehno]

In rebuttal to Stehno, I’d rather listen to mid-fi in a good room, than hi-fi in a crap room.

Nice rebuttal, Bob. Perhaps you'd like to show me the error of my ways?

BTW, I saw a few pics of your room a few years ago and aesthetically it's one of my favorites. A real simple beauty as I recall and with a beautiful oversized window view.

 

[Bobvin]

Nice rebuttal, Bob. Perhaps you'd like to show me the error of my ways?

BTW, I saw a few pics of your room a few years ago and aesthetically it's one of my favorites. A real simple beauty as I recall and with a beautiful oversized window view.

I’m not suggesting you are wrong or in error... we all approach the hobby and what we consider good sound in our own ways. I am always learning and re-evaluating, though not always with the resources I’d like to make adjustments and/or experiment.

My room remodel is detailed in my “Wilson & ARC for me” thread... and at some point the title will likely change as my own evolution continues. Thank you for the kind words re: my room. A neutral palette and pleasing aesthetics were design goals, with treatments “behind the scenes” to create a positive WAF.

Sadly, an ice storm has wreaked havok on the view out my listening room window. My landscape is going to require some serious editing as 2” accumulation of ice split several trees in half this weekend. The forest still stands, but mother nature did a lot of limbing the last 48 hours.

 

[kach22i]

In rebuttal to Stehno, I’d rather listen to mid-fi in a good room, than hi-fi in a crap room.

Good statement.

I'll add that I'd rather listen to my humble equipment in my own listening room than most mega-buck showrooms.

However, it sure is nice to see how the other side lives once in a while.

Now before anyone one-ups me, sure live music trumps all, but it is difficult to get dead people to show up to my place and perform live.

 

[PeterA]

In rebuttal to Stehno, I’d rather listen to mid-fi in a good room, than hi-fi in a crap room.

Sure, but I understood Stehno to be describing normal, average, rooms, not "a crap room". In a normal sounding room, he is arguing that one does not necessarily "need" audiophile acoustic room treatments. I understand this point of view, as I have removed all accessory treatments from my room and have been to other excellent sounding systems in rooms that also had none of these kinds of treatments applied.

Even in some custom designed rooms with all sorts of treatments, we have a couple of cases here on WBF where owners have decided to listen in the near field to large speaker systems which minimizes the impact of the room because they hear much more of the direct sound of the speakers. This makes me wonder if the custom rooms with their treatments add much to the listening experience.

I am just saying that I have heard good rooms which are considered normal and average, one even much below average, and the sound was excellent without any after-market treatments. So I understand Stehno's position that it is not a necessity. Will it help in some cases to some tastes and preferences, perhaps. I am certainly not arguing against it in all cases, but I think he has a point that it is not mandatory and essential in all rooms.

 

[Bobvin]

Peter, I don’t necessarily disagree with you or Stehno (John?). One measure I use personally is how a system sounds when the volume goes up into the 90db+ range. A lot can be learned once the amount of energy unmasks a rooms strengths and weaknesses. I’ve heard rooms that at more comfortable volumes sound great, but add energy and everything goes to hell.

I recall visiting Mike Lavigne early last year. We finished the night with SRV playing ”Tin Pan Alley“. There is a very low bass undercurrent I have never heard cleanly reproduced anywhere before and I will suggest it was heard the way it was not just because of his speakers/system. That said, to get that result included far more than casual “room treatments”— even in my room if the volume goes up too high that bass undercurrent muddies up the room.

 

[stehno]

...

And then Stehno seems to be saying that the issue is really the system and that the cause for poor sound can ( and should) be addressed before the signal ever reaches the speaker. Pretty interesting idea.

Well, that's kinda' sorta' what I'm saying, Peter. As part of the issue of the playback system per se, but to be thorough I most definitely need to include the painstaking task of finding superior speaker and subwoofer positioning and tuning.

First universal distortions plaguing all playback systems that render great percentages (well into the double-digits) of music info remaining inaudible due to the much raised noise floor. This must be addressed first.

Secondarily, there is the bass response which is determined by a speaker's and/or subwoofer's position within a room and any fine-tuniing associated with that. This needs to be included in any conversaion regarding a playback system's deficiencies. The whole topic of superior / musical bass is a chapter unto itself. But bass is the foundation for music and when corrected or deemed superior greatly improves the entire playback presentation's level of musicality not just in the lower regions but throughout the entire frequency spectrum.

I surmise in some / many ways bass actually has a noise floor of its own. Move the speakers 1/2 inch this or that direction and suddenly we're able to hear bass notes we never thought existed (previously inaudible). Morever, with such a move, all audible bass becomes deeper, tighter, more pronounced, well-defined and just plain more musical. Behaviors quite similar to a playback system's noise floor when it is drastically lowered.

So the most important topic is drastically lowering the universally much raised noise floor so more music info remains audible at the speaker. But secondarily, we have the bass' and what I call its noise floor. Near as I can tell a playback system's noise floor is almost entirely induced by dirty AC coming in from the street and then further corrupted as the input signal flows from the source all the way to the speaker drivers where it's converted to a mechanical signal. On the other hand, the bass noise floor as far as I can tell is almost entirely made up of the speaker's interaction with the room's boundaries - assuming of course that the playback system's noise floor has already been sufficiently lowered.

But speaker positioning and finding AN and especially THE optimal placement seems to some extent be more voo-doo than science. Nevertheless, I suspect if people spent more time working on dialing in their speakers and subwoofers to their rooms, they could probably discard half of their room treatments right there. Just a hunch.

IOW, my position is that successfully addressing both noise floors described / hypothesized above to any good degree and the need for any custom room / acoustic treatement should be perhaps nonexistent. That is for perhaps any reasonable room.