Exactly what I am say, is the assumption of maximum treatment and minimum means for synergy and position.
Your expensive room treatments might probably making your system sound worse (and why you need to read the attached article)
- Thread starter exupgh12
- Start date
Exactly what I am say, is the assumption of maximum treatment and minimum means for synergy and position.
I must not be an audiophile. 
-When I moved to my new house I knew my (then current) speakers would be too big for the room.
-I knew the limits of what speaker size would be suitable.
-I was lucky enough that the speakers I loved and chose are a suitable size to the room.
-I left the room untreated while I set up my system, learned how it sounded, and understood how the room and system interacted.
-What helped in the above was using REW as a helper - not a driver - in understanding the system response.
-Once I was satisfied with all of the above I had some idea of what to deal with.
-I spent the time and the paltry amount of money to get acoustic treatment analysis and recommendations from a company that does it for a living.
-Solutions were tried, tested, some rejected, some accepted, all the while seeing if the results led to what I felt was better sound (and if the benefit showed itself in improved REW metrics, all the better).
-It’s done, there’s no need to wonder if it was done suitably.
-And my L and R channels and phase orientation are correct!
I guess this explains why I never got that official audiophile card in the mail.
-When I moved to my new house I knew my (then current) speakers would be too big for the room.
-I knew the limits of what speaker size would be suitable.
-I was lucky enough that the speakers I loved and chose are a suitable size to the room.
-I left the room untreated while I set up my system, learned how it sounded, and understood how the room and system interacted.
-What helped in the above was using REW as a helper - not a driver - in understanding the system response.
-Once I was satisfied with all of the above I had some idea of what to deal with.
-I spent the time and the paltry amount of money to get acoustic treatment analysis and recommendations from a company that does it for a living.
-Solutions were tried, tested, some rejected, some accepted, all the while seeing if the results led to what I felt was better sound (and if the benefit showed itself in improved REW metrics, all the better).
-It’s done, there’s no need to wonder if it was done suitably.
-And my L and R channels and phase orientation are correct!
I guess this explains why I never got that official audiophile card in the mail.
Last edited:
Nice article. He makes several excellent points.
Too much room treatment is a bad thing -- check
Measurements can't get you there -- check
Practical and emperical work trumps theory every time -- check
Finding the right spot for "room coupling" is massively important -- check
Be open minded; we all have more to learn -- check
Don't be a dick when you go listen to someone else's system -- check
He said in the article that many of the members in their group had slight differnces of opinion on the specifics. I guess like them there are a few points that I don't align with. The main one is the seating position. I agree with Jim Smith on this one. If you have the space to move your listening chair then this should be done first. If for no other reason than toe-in. If you place the speakers first and then move the listening chair then the toe-in angle will have changed dramatically. The other one is that he considers small movements on the order of 1/8". I think this is a very large movement and more than enough to move out of the "room coupling" spot. But otherwise his method seems like a good one and most audiophiles would probably be well served to dig in and try it out. I would bet they could dramatically improve their sound.
I thought this quote was interesting -- “For God’s sake it’s just a stereo, not building a pyramid”. People are spending about as much money on their stereo as a pyramid. It is unfortunate that many think they can just buy this stuff, plop it down, plug it in and have great music. IMO, it actually takes much more work to achieve spectacular sound than people want to admit.
Again, very nice article. I appreciate that Mr. Mak took the time to write it.
Too much room treatment is a bad thing -- check
Measurements can't get you there -- check
Practical and emperical work trumps theory every time -- check
Finding the right spot for "room coupling" is massively important -- check
Be open minded; we all have more to learn -- check
Don't be a dick when you go listen to someone else's system -- check
He said in the article that many of the members in their group had slight differnces of opinion on the specifics. I guess like them there are a few points that I don't align with. The main one is the seating position. I agree with Jim Smith on this one. If you have the space to move your listening chair then this should be done first. If for no other reason than toe-in. If you place the speakers first and then move the listening chair then the toe-in angle will have changed dramatically. The other one is that he considers small movements on the order of 1/8". I think this is a very large movement and more than enough to move out of the "room coupling" spot. But otherwise his method seems like a good one and most audiophiles would probably be well served to dig in and try it out. I would bet they could dramatically improve their sound.
I thought this quote was interesting -- “For God’s sake it’s just a stereo, not building a pyramid”. People are spending about as much money on their stereo as a pyramid. It is unfortunate that many think they can just buy this stuff, plop it down, plug it in and have great music. IMO, it actually takes much more work to achieve spectacular sound than people want to admit.
Again, very nice article. I appreciate that Mr. Mak took the time to write it.
The interaction between your sound system and the room's acoustics is crucial for good sound quality, regardless of how expensive the equipment is. Speaker placement and room acoustics play a significant role in what you hear. not even high-end audio equipment can overcome poor speaker placement or bad room acoustics.
For example: having a wall immediately behind your head can create acoustic challenges, potentially causing issues with standing waves and excessive early reflections (some of it can be treated by acoustic treatment but not all).
I won't argue with that (having gone back and forth numerous times between alternative placements)...
To be fair to Jim Smith, he doesn’t say the ratio should be 83-84%, only that after he has set up speakers for optimal sound the ratio is often in that narrow range. I tried that ratio in my system and didn’t like the results. I quickly moved my speakers back to their usual locations where the ratio is 78.6%.
In your reply to my post you somehow ignored my point 8., which clearly states that I selected my PranaFidelity Dhyana speakers being keenly aware of the problem of speakers often being too big for a given room. No one looking at the modest speaker dimensions I cited would reasonably suggest that they are too large for my room (24 ft x 12 ft x 8.5 ft).
I had first heard them at a show in a hotel room considerably smaller than my room, with no bass traps whatsoever and both bass reflex ports of the speakers open (maximum bass output). Never was there too much bass; in fact, on some music I would have preferred adding a subwoofer.
So the bass problem in my room is really specific to the room, not the speaker *). I was able to plug one of the two bass reflex ports without affecting driver excursion, which helped considerably in my room (I love that flexibility of the speakers), but a basic problem of the 70-Hz hump, typical of many rooms, still remained. My room unfortunately also has a bad ratio, a straight 1:2 ratio width to length (12 ft:24 ft). This is just what it is, I can't change that and have to work with what I have.
A 60-80 Hz hump is very common for rooms; there are even programs online where you can plug in room dimensions and what often comes out is a hump somewhere in the bass region. You cannot wish that away, and to suggest that in every room you can fix all problems with just speaker positioning while completely foregoing bass traps in all cases, or to suggest that bass traps are the "enemy", or to suggest that "non-audiophile" room furnishings are the solution to everything, is just nothing but inexperience and/or strong bias and goes against hard physics.
Yet even the article does not say that. It states (emphasis added):
Begin by removing all artificial treatments from the room, such as panels, corner traps, and diffusers, especially if they have been arbitrarily put up and not based on measured room acoustics. If the room sounds muffled or has a “recording studio” quality when you speak, it indicates that the room’s tonality is off. These treatments may not address the root cause of the issue, so it’s best to remove them and then slowly add them back, only when deemed appropriate. Many treatments primarily absorb high frequencies, offering little to no help with bass, which is often the main problem.
The paragraph implies that sometimes you may indeed need treatments. Yet contra his last sentence in the paragraph, ASC TubeTraps are extraordinarily effective in fighting bass problems, with a comparably moderate effect on damping of high frequencies.
Also the big room at Goodwin's High End has severe bass issues, with a pronounced hump at 70 Hz. They usually take care of that very efficiently with ASC TubeTraps. Yet once I auditioned Rockport Lyra speakers in the room, and the Rockport people had chosen to remove the ASC Tubetraps in favor of more liveliness of the room. Annoyingly, I had to sit through that 70-Hz hump on much material, which very much dimmed my enjoyment of the session. Here the "remedy" of removing the TubeTraps was clearly worse than the "illness" that the Rockport people wanted to cure. If you ask me, it was a silly mistake by them. The TubeTraps should have remained in the room.
***
Yes, I had to fight bass issues with my floor standers because of my specific room, but I would not go back to monitors, as I used to have, just because of that problem. For my personal preferences, I made the right choice buying those speakers.
_______________________________________
*) It's not my tube amp with its damping factor either. I have tested two SS amps with my speakers in my room, and the difference in bass amount and bass control to my tube amp was minimal.
Last edited:
Speaking from a simplistic perspective, when I moved my system from a small carpeted room in a townhouse to a large basement room in my 1st house with ceramic floors and bare walls, the sound went from pleasant to completely intolerable (predictably based on the number of reflective surfaces). Placing a large carpet on the floor and some (and likely insufficient) experimentation with speaker placement did little to improve the sound. I made a small investment in a full portfolio GIK acoustic panels. The results were transformational and I have been a proponent of acoustic treatments ever since. I utilized the Vicoustic Project for my dedicated room in my current home. My system in the new room was installed prior to the installation of the acoustic panels and my experience was identical in that the difference pre and post room treatment was significant. Additionally, in contrast to some other acoustic treatment products, the Vicoustic products have visual appeal in my opinion. Granted the investment was significant and my experimentation with speaker placement was limited relative to what others have described here.
I’m all for different approaches, this one just appears to be more complex than necessary.
To be extra clear, Jim has found in the vast majority of the time, the maximum musical engagement is between 82-84%.
I’m always surprised how often this happens at audio shows. About two years ago at Axpona, Estelon and Vitus had a $1.2 million system they heavily advertised on cost. It was absolutely horrible sounding in every dimension. Truly awful. Aldo then studied up on acoustics and treated the room at the next Axpona and the sound was vastly improved. I told Aldo he should get a Most Improved award.
Jim Smith used to get paid to go to shows and set up rooms. Many earned best of show awards.
There seems to be some part of the male psyche that as men we are born experts in stereo gear. But like everything else, there are insights to be gained through experience and, here, often tedious work over many days. I have heard so many expensive systems that sound terrible.
Many people should forgo the Taiko server or Stromtank addition until Jim Smith, Stirling Trayle, Peter McGrath, Richard Mak have visited and optimized the system.
Note: As I reread Richard’s process, he seems to be discovering ground that Jim and Stirling have well traveled. That’s good in that it confirms some of their process. But we should also keep in mind that Jim and Stirling have more experience.
I am not sure the Taiko and Stromtank people agree !
Am I the only person shocked (and somewhat skeptical) of this finding?
"40% of the rooms he visited (including "professionally designed" ones) had their L/R channels reversed"
Every test CD I have has a channel (and frequently phase) test track. The Aurender APP, Conductor, has a channel test track. I would also think that if someone was familiar with a song and then reversed channels when installing a new component or interconnect they would notice the mistake. "Hey, didn't the guitar used to be over there?"
"40% of the rooms he visited (including "professionally designed" ones) had their L/R channels reversed"
Every test CD I have has a channel (and frequently phase) test track. The Aurender APP, Conductor, has a channel test track. I would also think that if someone was familiar with a song and then reversed channels when installing a new component or interconnect they would notice the mistake. "Hey, didn't the guitar used to be over there?"
SBNX, I'm not aiming to be snotty with you. I'm just using a snip from your comments as a launching point.
Is being a d*** politely telling somebody you don't like the way their system sounds?
Is being a d***, not liking the way somebody's system sounds, but telling them it's world class?
I think a massive hindrance to a good sounding systems is guests coming to your house and telling you your stereo sounds nice when they truly feel it sounds like a**.
And even if they are honest and point out all the deficiencies, knowing how to address them can be a mountain of a challenge. You're asking people to exhibit journeymen skills when they haven't spent a single day being an apprentice. And no apprentice ever thrives when they are self taught. Remember the Time Life series, Read the book!!!!!!
I think the biggest takeaway of the linked article is that setting a stereo in a room is extremely difficult and most everyone will fail at it without professional support. Yes, it's presented as an article saying, just do this and you will be successful. I read between the lines. Providing people with snippets of information is a form of advertising. Give them enough to engender trust so they we'll call you and hire you for your services.
I believe if you engage professional support, such as calling a company that manufactures room treatments, there is a strong likelihood said company is going to sell you more treatments than you need to boost their bottom end.
A good friend of mine has 14 or more tube traps in his room. And a swarm of subwoofer. The beauty of the ASC tube trap is they can be a diffuser, not just in absorber. I don't sense his room is overtreated. But it probably needs less there. And he has added 4 since I last heard it. And the BACCH/ORC DSP does a lot to cover issues. As a side thought, in some sense, my perception is most people like to take it too far to hear the inaccuracy, then dial it back.
I read the article and agree. It took me over a year, maybe two years to get my room and setup good and I listen 4-5 times a week. It is hard. I thought maybe I just wasn't as smart as I thought I was. I think I could do it next time a little faster now that I have learned so much.
The comment about box speakers being problematic vs. panels or dipoles. I don't agree. I have had both. It always goes back to the room and setup. The only box speakers that I feel approach the speed of panels are Wilson and Thiel and now the Acora speakers I heard in 2022 at Axpona. Love the Quad ESLs but I want some bass. I will certainly qualify this with the fact that the number of different speakers/systems I have heard this past decade is limited.
The soundstage in my room is part of the thrill. Many, but not all recordings will have the singer about 5-6 feet above the floor. The cool part is their guitar image is 3-4 feet above the floor. I don't know how my speakers do that. On one Blues Company song the electric guitar speaker sounds like it is sitting on the floor to my right in the back. Pretty cool. The Roger Waters album, Amused to Death has some great spatial cues. The first song starts out with dogs barking to my extreme right. Later a voice is at my extreme left over by the window. That puts his voice 12 feet in front of the speakers and to the left about 10 feet away. Not heard anything else like that except at the end of Dark Side of the Moon, the laughter sounds like it is inside my head. That's playing the record. It is pretty wild. My soundstage is much bigger than my room. I have to close my eyes or listen in the dark at night. If I have my eyes closed for a while and get used to the large soundstage then I can open my eyes and the walls cut right through the soundstage. It used to be fun at first doing that but I'm over it now.
Some key things I learned- I have always liked wood floors. I think it helps the bass because the wood stiffens the floor. Then I can dial back floor reflections with wool rugs. If you have poured concrete floors, then stiffness is a given. I made my own bass traps in the early 90s. Went away from them for a while but now I use them again. They work for me. Diffusers are a great tool for sharpening images. They do not over dampen the room like absorbers. I spent weeks experimenting with diffusers to optimize my sound. I never thought much about the first reflection points until I tried some absorbers on the walls there. Made me a believer.
The soundstage is one reward for my effort and the other is the clean, detailed bass. I can hear the strings on the bass guitar like I hear on a standard acoustic guitar. The skin on bass drums, not just snare drums is so clear now. I have a buddy who installs high end car stereos for a living. He is impressed with my system but says his preference would be more bass. I have all the bass I want and would not care to sit in a car with those hammering woofers. The bass on my system goes through the floor and it can hit me in the chest when I crank it. And maybe once is a while I like it- like when playing Tusk.
One last point- the sound, the bass, all of it is consistent all around my Den/listening room. I can sit at my desk and enjoy the sound as much as in my listening spot. Imaging is not "perfect" like in the listening spot but still really good in all other parts of the room. I don't know if that is all setup or a property of the speakers.
The comment about box speakers being problematic vs. panels or dipoles. I don't agree. I have had both. It always goes back to the room and setup. The only box speakers that I feel approach the speed of panels are Wilson and Thiel and now the Acora speakers I heard in 2022 at Axpona. Love the Quad ESLs but I want some bass. I will certainly qualify this with the fact that the number of different speakers/systems I have heard this past decade is limited.
The soundstage in my room is part of the thrill. Many, but not all recordings will have the singer about 5-6 feet above the floor. The cool part is their guitar image is 3-4 feet above the floor. I don't know how my speakers do that. On one Blues Company song the electric guitar speaker sounds like it is sitting on the floor to my right in the back. Pretty cool. The Roger Waters album, Amused to Death has some great spatial cues. The first song starts out with dogs barking to my extreme right. Later a voice is at my extreme left over by the window. That puts his voice 12 feet in front of the speakers and to the left about 10 feet away. Not heard anything else like that except at the end of Dark Side of the Moon, the laughter sounds like it is inside my head. That's playing the record. It is pretty wild. My soundstage is much bigger than my room. I have to close my eyes or listen in the dark at night. If I have my eyes closed for a while and get used to the large soundstage then I can open my eyes and the walls cut right through the soundstage. It used to be fun at first doing that but I'm over it now.
Some key things I learned- I have always liked wood floors. I think it helps the bass because the wood stiffens the floor. Then I can dial back floor reflections with wool rugs. If you have poured concrete floors, then stiffness is a given. I made my own bass traps in the early 90s. Went away from them for a while but now I use them again. They work for me. Diffusers are a great tool for sharpening images. They do not over dampen the room like absorbers. I spent weeks experimenting with diffusers to optimize my sound. I never thought much about the first reflection points until I tried some absorbers on the walls there. Made me a believer.
The soundstage is one reward for my effort and the other is the clean, detailed bass. I can hear the strings on the bass guitar like I hear on a standard acoustic guitar. The skin on bass drums, not just snare drums is so clear now. I have a buddy who installs high end car stereos for a living. He is impressed with my system but says his preference would be more bass. I have all the bass I want and would not care to sit in a car with those hammering woofers. The bass on my system goes through the floor and it can hit me in the chest when I crank it. And maybe once is a while I like it- like when playing Tusk.
One last point- the sound, the bass, all of it is consistent all around my Den/listening room. I can sit at my desk and enjoy the sound as much as in my listening spot. Imaging is not "perfect" like in the listening spot but still really good in all other parts of the room. I don't know if that is all setup or a property of the speakers.
Indeed, that helps. They effectively absorb bass, but compared to that only moderately dampen high frequencies, especially in diffusion mode (side with dots out into the room).
I have IsoThermal TubeTraps in the two corners of the front wall, and regularTubeTraps in the small window bay on the left side, which is also important ("corners are the enemy"). My next acoustic upgrade will be replacing the regular TubeTraps in the window bay with IsoThermal traps as well (same dimensions). The beauty is that this switch between TubeTraps of same dimensions does not increase treble absorption, just bass control.
Not surprised at all. In fact, I frequently find rooms at shows where the left and right channels are reveresed. Most notably, at AXPONA a couple years ago the orignial Wilson Wamm was set up. The channels were reversed.
If I am part of a group of people who has been invited to someone's house as an audiophile event then I am there as a guest not as a critic. If the person asks then I typically will say that their system sounds nice. If someone privately pushes me for critcal input then I will give them a few observations of things that could be improved. But usually more socratic in nature. IMO, if someone is rude or overly direct then they will just be shut out and no good is going to come from that.
There are two parts to finding the proper speaker position. First, being able to astutely listen and identify a defect in the sound. Second, knowing what to do with the speaker to resolve that problem. I think that Mr. Mak gave sufficient information to enable someone to experiment with his method. Try it and see what happens. It will only cost you a Saturday of fun and learning.
Similar threads
