Tuning room

[cjf]

Looking for someone in the Asheville, NC area to help getting my listening room set up. Any recommendations for an acoustic consultant? Room is about 14’ wide and 18‘ wide with 11’ ceilings.

Thanks for any suggestions.

Can you clarify the above mentioned dimensions? I see you mention "wide" twice.

Its hard to tell how close your couch is to the speaker front plane but have you experimented with "Near Field" listening by chance? How about Long Wall configuration & Nearfield Combo?

These are free experiments but no doubt a bit of a PITA. Could be worth it though.

 

[Hoosr1]

Whoops, should read 18 feet in length. I usually enjoy near field, but it sounded better with the couch slightly further away than the distance between the tweeters. Maybe slightly less precise, but more musical/enjoyable.

 

[Hoosr1]

No amount of speaker position tweaking or home furnishings placement can effectively mitigate room acoustical issues in a room with these dimensions. Note that 5.5 feet behind the listening position would typically not be enough distance for diffusion to work well (I've seen acoustic consultants recommend twice that). Your room appears to be too small for diffusion to work optimally, with every surface untreated and therefore reflective. At a minimum you need absorption or combination absorption/scatter panels (or something more exotic-see link below). An inexpensive approach would be GIK panels with scatter plates - 244 panels behind the speakers and between them (below the windows with one edge in the corner) and on the wall behind the listening position, with 242 panels on the side walls. The center panel could be a GIK "Art Panel". The scatter plates prevent over-damping the room. RPG's "BAD" combination panels are superior to GIK but also more expensive. I would also put an ASI "Sugar Cube" in each ceiling corner no matter what else you do, and a couple on the glass of each window. If you use "Sugar Cubes" on the glass surfaces there will be no need to cover them. "Sugar Cubes" also work very well in lieu of panels on the ceiling.

FYI: https://www.stereophile.com/content/fifth-element-90

Very Helpful, thanks!

 

[cjf]

Whoops, should read 18 feet in length. I usually enjoy near field, but it sounded better with the couch slightly further away than the distance between the tweeters. Maybe slightly less precise, but more musical/enjoyable.

In the past I had a room that was just slightly bigger then yours is. My room at the time was 15ft deep x 22ft wide. But, probably 2.5ft of that Depth was occupied by a Staircase so not a true 15' deep.

I settled on a Long Wall configuration in that space for a few reasons.

1. I could skirt many Sidewall related issues that would otherwise be there if I used a Short wall configuration.
2. The fairly Nearfield position of my listening chair (at about 7ft) in the above mentioned arrangement would help mask many other Room related issues due to the lack of Depth.

 

[Bjorn]

In a room of this size I would highly recommend starting with bass trapping and choose the type based on what's practical and the budget.

Type of bass trapping will also lay the foundation of what kind of treatment can be used for mids and highs.

Starting in the other end with treatment above the lows and especially with bandlimited treatment as recommended here, can easily take you down an endless road where the result will never be great.

Bass lays the foundation for everything.
While one could use DSP/EQ, it doesn't work great on it's own since it doesn't address the time domain behaviour as well.

 

[Hoosr1]

In the past I had a room that was just slightly bigger then yours is. My room at the time was 15ft deep x 22ft wide. But, probably 2.5ft of that Depth was occupied by a Staircase so not a true 15' deep.

I settled on a Long Wall configuration in that space for a few reasons.

1. I could skirt many Sidewall related issues that would otherwise be there if I used a Short wall configuration.
2. The fairly Nearfield position of my listening chair (at about 7ft) in the above mentioned arrangement would help mask many other Room related issues due to the lack of Depth.

A lot to think about there, seems like a 14’ length would not support a lot of bass, but maybe that is wrong. Thanks for the response.

 

[stehno]

Hello Hoosr1! Welcome to WBF!

stehno was characteristically dogmatic and confident based only on your room dimensions.

Is there any glass in your room? Sliding patio doors? Windows? Large picture frames?

Do you have a TV screen in the room?

Of what material are the walls made?

Hoosr1, I’m not sure if Ron is just pullin’ your leg or perhaps trying to get me to conform to one of his preconceived narratives?

Anyway, this in-room video should help substantiate my point that custom rooms, aftermarket acoustic treatments, etc are sooooo unnecessary – if you give it some volume.

 

[cjf]

While one could use DSP/EQ, it doesn't work great on it's own since it doesn't address the time domain behaviour as well.

Audiolense does

 

[Bjorn]

Audiolense does

Not when it's not minimum phase behaviour. And EQ doesn't address harmonics, generally it's not good to lift dips due to higher distortion and obviously it only works in a small area. EQ is always a compromise vs dealing with the roots.

 

[stehno]

Appreciate the advice. The vocals, jazz and anything acoustic sounds dialed in. Rock or pop (good recordings) seem to overload the room a bit. I’ll try the bookcase in the back and maybe something for the first reflection.

thanks!

Hoosr1, when a room is genuinely “dialed in”, there really is no reason for the room to discriminate against music genres but even if not genuinely “dialed in” I’ve never heard of a room actually discriminating against music genres.

Since rock and pop can often times prove a bit more challenging i.e. more easily exhibit break up, flattening out, congestion, etc. it most likely is your system and under-addressed distortions that’s causing your system to favor less challenging music.

BTW, when somebody states something as fact like Cellcbern did when he said,

“No amount of speaker position tweaking or home furnishings placement can effectively mitigate room acoustical issues in a room with these dimensions.”

I would suggest asking the claimant for more proof than just their word. When I hear such “facts”, I can’t help but wonder, how many times must one fly to the moon to prove it can be done?

Here’s a live rock concert piece to better demonstrate my point. Again, this was recorded in a shoebox-shaped room (think difficult to make work) and without any custom acoustic treatments using only superior speaker positioning and minimal home/room furnishings like carpet/pad, chair, a few ottomans, and bookcases. Not to mention that the in-room volume levels average around 104db. A recipe for disaster if there’s any truth to Cellcbern’s claim, right?

I’d suggest listening to this video via your computer and headphones at max volume.

BTW, very nice room.

 

[Kingrex]

Sweet looking system. All the gear has good synergy.
Keep up with learning how to tune. I have a good friend with a modest $40k setup. Similar value to mine. His system plays as good as many I hear costing up to a quarter million. Its all tuning. He experiments with everything. Shelfs, footers, placement, room treatments, power. It is a process.

The worst part being, its hard to tell whats better at times. I have had people with deep experience at my place start tuning. I still remember one guy with power cords. He started pulling my at the time fancy cords and replacing them with something like a ching cheng. At first I did not like it. If it was me alone I would have stopped and thought I was going in the wrong direction. He told me he thought it was better. So we kept pulling my audiophile cords and replacing them. The last cord he replaced resulted in the entire system clicking into place. We both looked at each other with a sort of shock.

Outside ears help. Someone who has been around the block. A person not afraid to tell you what they hear is a total disaster. The biggest obstacle is most people have an adjenda. They want to sell you $20k in cables.

I'm pulling this off the cuff. If I were to rank how to approach tuning a system I would try these moves in this order.

1. Make your electrical power as good as your willing. Your system will reapond well to a isolation transformer such as Torus or Equitech. Make it global.
2. I would look at racking and footers. Get the gear on the right foundation.
3. Start moving the speakers around. Really, you can move the speakers as the very first move. But speaker placement wont fix veiling and loss of dynamics from poor power or vibration issues in equipment.
4. Try 4 to 6 ASC tube traps. These do not by any means have to be the end all. ASC tube traps have an absorption side and diffusion on the other. As you spin it you move between the 2. It lets you hear what works best.
5. Having an understanding of REW is a benefit. Only to measure room response. Try and figure the peaks and dips. If you want to use DSP you can, but thats another can of worms. And I would get all the rest correct before DSP.
6. Last would be cables. Cables and duplex change the sound. Your adjusting the tone to your taste.

 

[Powerman]

Speakers put out a primary wave, after that, everything else is reflections from everything. Upper and mids are easiest to absorb, but true bass absorbtion requires much more than minimal material tossed in a corner. I am in the camp of every first reflection point should be treated. I am also in the camp that there is no such thing as too much. I don't buy "dead". I want to hear my gear and speakers, not the room. I have a odd room on the small side. The majority of it has 12" of pink pluffy in panels. Even my low ceilings. 18" on much of the sides. That's for bass trapping. Again, mids and above can be done with much less. Once I was done, if I wanted reflections I could hang more reflective material or diffusion on top but never did. But there is probably a third or 2/5ths of the room I can do nothing with. Most everything is up front first reflections. Stage and "being there" is awesome. But really good recordings... I am sitting in the studio live... Spooky good. Bass trapping is much improved. Still some nodes around the room bellow 60, but bass responce is clean at LP...

And there is no such thing as absorbing too much bass. You don't suck bass out of the room, you remove reflections. Every crappy sub you've ever heard was mostly the room and placement, not the sub. Peaks and nulls destroy bass. Those are only caused by reflections. I have all the bass I want. I like a lot of bass and my sub is less than half. And ALL bass sounds like it is coming from my bookshelfs perfectly centered.

Now I don't expect everyone to do the same or even agree with me, but too much absorbtion is a myth. And just because most are used to listening in live rooms, doesn't mean that's good. Go over to Gearspace forum in the acoustic sub forum if you want to go down another rabbit hole. But I'm a believer. It's all about gas flow, less is more... Pink fluffy or 2lb rock wool...

 

[Ron Resnick]

Speakers put out a primary wave

It depends on which types of loudspeakers you are talking about. Dipole speakers put out a direct wave, as well as a reflected wave.

I am also in the camp that there is no such thing as too much. I don't buy "dead".

This definitely is a minority view, if not a unique view. Most audiophiles -- even most acousticians -- find a "dead" room to be undesirable and to sound unnatural.

Once I was done, if I wanted reflections I could hang more reflective material or diffusion on top but never did.

It seems to me to be kind of an odd strategy to make the room non-reflective and dead, and then to add additional acoustic treatment to manufacture and add back reflections.

I am sitting in the studio live...

Perhaps this explains your preference, as I think that generally recording studios tend to be pretty heavily damped.

Now I don't expect everyone to do the same or even agree with me, but too much absorbtion is a myth.

If it works for you, that's all that matters! I am happy for you that you have found an acoustic treatment strategy that pleases you!

 

[Powerman]

It depends on which types of loudspeakers you are talking about. Dipole speakers put out a direct wave, as well as a reflected wave.


This definitely is a minority view, if not a unique view. Most audiophiles -- even most acousticians -- find a "dead" room to be undesirable and to sound unnatural.


It seems to me to be kind of an odd strategy to make the room non-reflective and dead, and then to add additional acoustic treatment to manufacture and add back reflections.

Perhaps this explains your preference, as I think that generally recording studios tend to be pretty heavily damped.

If it works for you, that's all that matters! I am happy for you that you have found an acoustic treatment strategy that pleases you!

Yes, and dipoles exist to try to solve the room problem. Plenty of speakers with open and infinite baffles and dipoles. All are attempts to create a space in a room. My point was I want to hear what my speakers put out, not how my room messes that up.

And I've heard the arguments why they are "disorienting". No, they are not, not to me. Yes, we can locate where we are in space with sound reflections... When there are objects around to reflect. When we are enclosed. But out in an open field... There are no reflections from objects... We are not disoriented. The most accute spacial cues come from below, the ground. And that's the one thing in a listening room that really can't be treated well. Carpet and pad absorbs hardly nothing. A lot comes back. My floor is easily seen in REW. Point being, if you don't "like it" fine, but there is nothing about listening to reproduced music that requires it. And most processing locates musicians in space and adds reverb. I hear what is intinded without my room... And of course, my room is not an anechoic chamber regardless what I have done. I have lots that remain.

The point is not treatment to add treatment. The point is to trap bass and it requires a lot regardless of what cute traps retailers try to sell. Bass is difficult to address with long wavelengths in smaller rooms. To trap bass, you need a lot of high gas resistivity. That naturally traps everything else. So... Trapping bass is always good... If you prefer a more live room, you can cover some surface area with more reflective surface which means more upper frequencies are reflected... But bass is still managed. Like anything, tune for what you want, but it all starts with adressing the bottom end. All reflections are not equal.

I don't "prefer" a studio. I've never stepped foot in one. But I understand the benefit of what I've done. I didn't add this in a day. I started with side walls. Then ceiling, then back... It was a progression, and everytime more was better. But I can hear the recorded space exactly as it was intended. And when something is recorded dead in a dead studio... I hear that too. Norah Jones has that song "tiny room" recorded in the booth... Yes, it sounds like I'm in the booth with her. I don't need a live room to hear a dead studio. Again, there is nothing about listening to reproduced music that requires room reflections. And most acousticians make their living off removing them. Liking reflections is personal preference, not a requirement.

This obviously matters more in smaller rooms. If your listening room is a cavern, well then reflections come late and can be disregarded. My room is 16x22 with 8 foot ceilings. And I have 4x8 taken out for utility room. It's an "L". My room is intimate. My friends house with big upstairs and high ceiling with zero treatment. It does sound bigger with similar set up because has a bigger canvass. But my room will never be that. But the stage definition and realism of mine is much better. And the base responce in my room is much better, and we have the same sub.

 

[Powerman]

One last word on this... The whole premise of headphones is to remove the room. To isolate the drivers. Their value is listening to only the music without any interference from anything. The problem is regardless of the best claims, they can't image in space with stereo. I I sold my headphones because I just can't listen to them anymore with where my 2.1 ch is. But a lot of headphones sound amazing with their resolution, transperancy, and accuracy. Speakers isolated from the room is not a bad thing. There are many benefits.

 

[Gregm]

Hoosr1, when a room is genuinely “dialed in”, there really is no reason for the room to discriminate against music genres but even if not genuinely “dialed in” I’ve never heard of a room actually discriminating against music genres.

That is my experience as well

Again, this was recorded in a shoebox-shaped room (think difficult to make work) and without any custom acoustic treatments using only superior speaker positioning and minimal home/room furnishings like carpet/pad, chair, a few ottomans, and bookcases. Not to mention that the in-room volume levels average around 104db. A recipe for disaster if there’s any truth to Cellcbern’s claim, right?

I’d suggest listening to this video via your computer and headphones at max volume.

BTW, very nice room.

How big is your room? (Nice sound, btw)

 

[stehno]

That is my experience as well

How big is your room? (Nice sound, btw)

Thanks, Greg. My room is 21' x 12' x 8'

 

[stehno]

Yes, and dipoles exist to try to solve the room problem. Plenty of speakers with open and infinite baffles and dipoles. All are attempts to create a space in a room. My point was I want to hear what my speakers put out, not how my room messes that up.

You're rather insightful here but it's not just infinite baffles and di-poles as the list also includes omni-directional and multi-channel designs and executions as well.

More importantly, such designs / executions are not intended to resolve room problems per se because we're really talking ambient info or lack thereof from the live performance via the recording via the system. If the room's acoustic anomalies (which we all have) are overshadowing the ambient info from the recording, then it's a system and/or speaker/room interface problem rather than a room problem. But when the volumes of ambient info from a recording overshadows a room's acoustic anomalies, the room and its acoustic anomalies are all but gone. IOW, why spend time working on a room that's really not there anymore?

And I've heard the arguments why they are "disorienting". No, they are not, not to me. Yes, we can locate where we are in space with sound reflections... When there are objects around to reflect. When we are enclosed. But out in an open field... There are no reflections from objects... We are not disoriented. The most accute spacial cues come from below, the ground. And that's the one thing in a listening room that really can't be treated well. Carpet and pad absorbs hardly nothing. A lot comes back. My floor is easily seen in REW. Point being, if you don't "like it" fine, but there is nothing about listening to reproduced music that requires it. And most processing locates musicians in space and adds reverb. I hear what is intinded without my room... And of course, my room is not an anechoic chamber regardless what I have done. I have lots that remain.

The point is not treatment to add treatment. The point is to trap bass and it requires a lot regardless of what cute traps retailers try to sell. Bass is difficult to address with long wavelengths in smaller rooms. To trap bass, you need a lot of high gas resistivity. That naturally traps everything else. So... Trapping bass is always good... If you prefer a more live room, you can cover some surface area with more reflective surface which means more upper frequencies are reflected... But bass is still managed. Like anything, tune for what you want, but it all starts with adressing the bottom end. All reflections are not equal.

I don't "prefer" a studio. I've never stepped foot in one. But I understand the benefit of what I've done. I didn't add this in a day. I started with side walls. Then ceiling, then back... It was a progression, and everytime more was better. But I can hear the recorded space exactly as it was intended. And when something is recorded dead in a dead studio... I hear that too. Norah Jones has that song "tiny room" recorded in the booth... Yes, it sounds like I'm in the booth with her. I don't need a live room to hear a dead studio. Again, there is nothing about listening to reproduced music that requires room reflections. And most acousticians make their living off removing them. Liking reflections is personal preference, not a requirement.

This obviously matters more in smaller rooms. If your listening room is a cavern, well then reflections come late and can be disregarded. My room is 16x22 with 8 foot ceilings. And I have 4x8 taken out for utility room. It's an "L". My room is intimate. My friends house with big upstairs and high ceiling with zero treatment. It does sound bigger with similar set up because has a bigger canvass. But my room will never be that. But the stage definition and realism of mine is much better. And the base responce in my room is much better, and we have the same sub.

My hunch is it all depends on where one focuses their resources. If we focus our resources on "the room" then we are essentially dealing with the effects. But if we focus our resources on the playback system and/or speaker/room interface (not to be confused with "the room"), then we're dealing with the causes. When given the choice between dealing with the effects or the cause(s), I'll choose addressing the causes every time and for several reasons.

 

[Powerman]

You're rather insightful here but it's not just infinite baffles and di-poles as the list also includes omni-directional and multi-channel designs and executions as well.

More importantly, such designs / executions are not intended to resolve room problems per se because we're really talking ambient info or lack thereof from the live performance via the recording via the system. If the room's acoustic anomalies (which we all have) are overshadowing the ambient info from the recording, then it's a system and/or speaker/room interface problem rather than a room problem. But when the volumes of ambient info from a recording overshadows a room's acoustic anomalies, the room and its acoustic anomalies are all but gone. IOW, why spend time working on a room that's really not there anymore?


My hunch is it all depends on where one focuses their resources. If we focus our resources on "the room" then we are essentially dealing with the effects. But if we focus our resources on the playback system and/or speaker/room interface (not to be confused with "the room"), then we're dealing with the causes. When given the choice between dealing with the effects or the cause(s), I'll choose addressing the causes every time and for several reasons.

However, room anomalies are not dealt with one being louder than the other... Reflections effects primary waves regardless and produce peaks and nulls. The room, and the reflections in it, are ALWAYS there unless dealt with. And while there may be personal preferences for how they are dealt with, and some outlying opinions, treating first reflections are rather universally accepted. Which is what I did. Except the floor of course.

Cause and effect is not either or... You can do both. And again... Universally accepted both should be done. Because if you are not dealing with effects, then you are not getting the most out of your causes. And dealing with effects are a mere fraction of what one can spend on the other. All in, my treatment is less than 10% of my system cost. The improvements achieved are larger than their share of the cost. When it comes to tuning and getting the most out of a system, treatment is the biggest bang for buck solution. The acoustical space the audio equipment performs in simply can not be ignored. It is in fact one part of the "cause" system.

 

[stehno]

However, room anomalies are not dealt with one being louder than the other... Reflections effects primary waves regardless and produce peaks and nulls. The room, and the reflections in it, are ALWAYS there unless dealt with. And while there may be personal preferences for how they are dealt with, and some outlying opinions, treating first reflections are rather universally accepted. Which is what I did. Except the floor of course.

Cause and effect is not either or... You can do both. And again... Universally accepted both should be done. Because if you are not dealing with effects, then you are not getting the most out of your causes. And dealing with effects are a mere fraction of what one can spend on the other. All in, my treatment is less than 10% of my system cost. The improvements achieved are larger than their share of the cost. When it comes to tuning and getting the most out of a system, treatment is the biggest bang for buck solution. The acoustical space the audio equipment performs in simply can not be ignored. It is in fact one part of the "cause" system.

To be clear, I'm not talking an empty listening room but rather a minimally-furnished reasonable room with reasonable space and symmetry, carpet/pad, chair, an ottoman, a bookcase or two, and perhaps a few other furnishings and little/nothing more.

As for discussing the logic and practicality of ever pursuing effects instead of the cause(s) or even pursuing both and the ensuing benefits, sure we could go down that rabbit hole, but why? If it's not a pointless discussion, it should be.

This is presumably a studio / recording hall recording where above I had already posted two live performances in concert halls. Perhaps you could suggest some acoustic treatment strategies to help me improve my playback presentation?

Better yet, perhaps you could post your own video or two to better demonstrate where you're coming from?