Acoustic stretched ceiling : Worth it ?

[Bjorn]

I am aware of that
The aim is not to build a a highly optimized treated room !
I will build a dedicated listening room with the next couple of years and I will take care of acoustics, especially in decay time

For the moment, we have to replace the stretched ceiling in our living room that I use as listing room and thus I am evaluating the ROI of a micro perforated one, trying to balance the supplementary cost vs potential benefit.

Using diffusion with more broadband absorption behind would be much better, but likely also cost more. There are products that absorb quite loq in frequency with 5.4mm depth by the way.

 

[FrankW]

The most obvious reason is that it's impractical, if not impossible, to switch blindly between the two.

That's an obvious excuse Doug, not reason. Toole did it with rotating absorbers, diffusers and plain drywall on sidewalls.
Kishinaga did it https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/conventions/?elib=2830
McGill did it https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16640
Zero reason why ceiling couldn't be done. All three of those tests were of the treatment devout, not consumers. The 2 ears vs 2 eyes/beliefs results were equally amusing for what is really preferred.

And there probably be a WOULD be a difference in a blind test anyway and you'd probably know which is which.

A ton of red herring in yours. "Measure" is not same as "audible" and further, "audible" is not same as "preferred". Acoustics and amplifiers, zero correlation.
But when, as expected, zero controlled listening tests can/will be provided, well...

Exactly what I said.

That's not the point... The test should be blind to eliminate the effects of bias or expectation

It is the point. Sighted belief of need for ceiling "treatment" in domestic/homes is no different from any other. This is supposed to be a science based forum

 

[FrankW]

Frank is also misunderstanding/misrepresenting when it is necessary to blind test. Blind testing is necessary to tease out preferences between small differences, or to determine if a person who claims to hear something immeasurable actually can do this.

Wrong. That's a JND type test. Preference can also be blind tested.

If you have a clearly measured difference well above the threshold of hearing, it's generally not necessary to do a blind test to make sure that difference is "really" there. For example, if you have a room mode that's boosting 100Hz by 10dB and you're able to address it with EQ and room treatment and bring it down to flat, and you can demonstrate both with measurement, you don't need a double-blind test to "prove" anything. To say you need a double blind test to prove that someone can hear when a 100Hz signal is twice as loud isn't a commitment to scientific accuracy, it's just being obstinate.

Nice strawman and false equivalence, but expected when zero listening tests can be provided. The audibility of +10db at 100hz has been known since Fletcher, no one claimed otherwise. Total false equivalence to audibility of attenuating ceiling reflections in homes aka this thread. Worse, in terms of preference, there is evidence that some consumers may prefer +10db at 20hz "distortion" in consumer playback.

As to the OP's original question, all things being equal, do the acoustic ceiling treatment. But the difference will probably not be dramatic, so if it's pricey, it might be worth spending that money elsewhere.

Exactly. But the visual "improvement" will be, well, visible.

 

[Adi777]

Worse, in terms of preference, there is evidence that some consumers may prefer +10db at 20hz "distortion" in consumer playback.

What does this mean for someone who has bought good speakers and has professional acoustic adaptation done?

 

[FrankW]

What does this mean for someone who has bought good speakers and has professional acoustic adaptation done?

I give up, what does it mean?

 

[Adi777]

what does it mean?

What what does it mean?

Why should they care about the preferences of someone who has an acoustic adaptation of the listening room - done not by ear, but with professional equipment and after various measurements?

 

[FrankW]

What what does it mean?

Why should they care about the preferences of someone who has an acoustic adaptation of the listening room - done not by ear, but with professional equipment and after various measurements?

I'm guessing English isn't your primary language and I still give up, why should who care about an "acoustic adaptation"?
"Professional" sounds like someone paid $$

 

[Adi777]

I'm guessing English isn't your primary language and I still give up, why should who care about an "acoustic adaptation"?
"Professional" sounds like someone paid $$

Just by reading your posts one can come to the conclusion that acoustic adaptation - (is there no such expression in English?) - is irrelevant or even BS.
Perhaps I am wrong.
Acoustic adaptation=acoustic treatment.

 

[FrankW]

No, adaptation is something else. Toole dedicates a chapter to it in his book, here it a free article hopefully your online translator can process https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/room-reflections-human-adaptation
Unbeknown to treatment devout, humans are not microphones. We can/have adapted to enclosed spaces throughout evolution.
Regarding the need or even "worth" of so called treatments in furnished, domestic living spaces, that comes down strictly to a audio-visual preference of the individual.
Another well known feature of humans - preference. YMMV.

 

[youngho]

Electroacoustic simulation offers the potential for rapid switching/comparison, but the Archimedes project did not explore preference, only audibility.

Bech 1995
https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.413047
“electroacoustic simulation of the right-hand loudspeaker of a stereophonic setup, positioned in a small room.”
“The results show that only the first-order ceiling and floor reflections are likely to contribute individually to the timbre of a speech signal. For a noise signal additional reflections, from the wall to the left of the listener, will individually contribute to the timbre. The threshold of detection for all reflections depends on the level of the reverberant field. If the reverberant field is removed, thresholds will decrease by 2-5 dB.”
“care should be taken when generalizating from the results presented in this paper.”

Bech 1996
https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.414952
“The results have confirmed the findings of the first report that the floor reflection will contribute on an individual basis to the timbre of a noise signal.”

Bech 1998
https://pubs.aip.org/asa/jasa/artic...al-aspects-of-reproduced-sound-in-small-rooms
"The results thus suggest that the spectral energy above 2 kHz, for some of the individual reflections, determines the degree of influence the reflection will have on the spatial aspects of the reproduced sound. The results show that reflections 1 (floor), 5 (ceiling), and 9 (left wall) are so strong that they will contribute separately to the spatial aspects, if their spectra contain sufficient energy in the frequency range above 2kHz. If the reflections only contain energy below 500Hz, only the first-order floor reflection will contribute to spatial aspects."

Bech and Lokki 2019
https://users.aalto.fi/~ktlokki/Publs/JASMAN_vol_146_iss_5_3562_1.pdf
Sound field reproduction using spherical loudspeaker array in anechoic chamber, listeners told ““Imagine that you are in a typical residential room, listening to a 2-ch stereophonic reproduction over loudspeakers.”
Four perceptual constructs comprising attribute clusters

1. Reverberance: relates to the later energy [of the sound field], “excellent relation” to RT30 and early decay time
2. Width and envelopment: relate to the earlier energy of the sound field
3. Bass
4. Proximity, negatively correlates to width and envelopment, “strong correlation” with clarity index 50 (C50) and direct to reverb ratio (DRR)

“Assessors systematically preferred the sound fields with lower RT. In our study, the most preferred acoustical conditions presented fields that evoked the sense of being less reverberant and less wide and enveloping. The sources were perceived as closer to the listener, exhibiting high levels of proximity. It is also important to note that the current results suggested that a negative preference is apparent for acoustical conditions with RT higher than 0.4 s”
“One could attempt to alter the DRR within a field by means of directivity control in the loudspeakers, aiming to evoke certain perceptual aspects that would otherwise be dominated by the room’s natural acoustical field.”