How effective would heavy ceiling treatment work here?

[Audio Science Pal]

I agree with the previously mentioned comments that the wall of glass windows is more of a concern than the ceiling.

 

[ZolaIII]

All right let's keep it short. This is sub example how to peek pronounced room mode peeks and I will only focus on first one in this example. Sub is close enclosure and target slopes are 18 dB down and 24 dB up to crossover point of 120 Hz.

Raw response in my small room with a length of 4 m and typical first peak for such.

First PEQ applied at 43.55 Hz, - 11.6 dB and Q 7.78. You do this one by hand and aim to lower resonance as much as possible letting peak keap it's shape but reducing it considerably.

Letting the REW do the rest to in my case flat target (I use ISO 226 2003). In this case that consisted on three PEQ's for gentle slope down at 35 Hz, and two for first peek and now revealed second one at 48 Hz. And that's it all done.

Same in frequency domain.

THD improvement.
Of course you don't stop there and you can go up to let's say end of female main tones range, after that PEQ Q range becomes inadequate and you continue with flipped out impulse response convolution and eventually slope the highs afterwards if over the target. So much from me on this occasion. Have a nice time and happy PEQ-ing.

 

[ernestcarl]

Based on amir's mention that DSP can help with resonances (and because I upgraded front L/R), took a few new measurements today. one with no processing at all, one with DLBC on, and one with my HTP1 in Dirac Bypass mode. I don't see in the manual exactly what that does, but i figured why not

EVen with DLBC on, I presume all recommendations in this thread still stand?

EQ with additional bass drivers helps... but not for everything.

It should certainly reduce the worst offending peaks, but the reflection-decay will still continue to be somewhat unevenly high throughout much of the response with/out EQ. It's not really an unmitigated disaster, IMO... just that you lose 'clarity' and ability to hear low-level detail (audio without any much extra room sound and uneveness) in contrast to listening via headphones or in a fully treated space.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

The ceiling is quite high so I doubt that you are hearing much from reflections from it.

For real?

 

[audiofooled]

Anyone tried to invert the polarity (impulse response is inverted), time align and average the responses?

Anyway, I would try fiddling with the setup first, some curtains as others suggested, perhaps some soft furnishings, something to mitigate the flutter echo. There are many reflections in the impulse response arriving at different times that do no favor to the clarity.

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

Beautiful room. Horrible for sound in a lot of ways, but beautiful. I would much rather listen to music in that room with all the issues than listen to perfect sound at my desk.

If that were my room, I would play with the toe of the speakers. Maybe crossing in front of the listener, to bring down sidewall first reflections, maybe more toed out. I would try to find a set up where my problematic modes were least problematic.

Then I would EQ as much as I could.

Then I would call it a day.

But, depending on what is behind the listener, I might (might) treat the heck out of the back of the room. Let the front be the front, try to kill as much sound that went past me as possible.

Good luck!

 

[Mart68]

Beautiful room. Horrible for sound in a lot of ways, but beautiful. I would much rather listen to music in that room with all the issues than listen to perfect sound at my desk.

Yes. My room is acoustically good but I'd still be happy to swap anytime

if that did happen first thing I would do is get some curtains up and some more rugs down.

Ceiling looks to be about 30 foot up and possibly already the least reflective surface in the room. Surely the last candidate for treatment not the first?

 

[Timcognito]

Tapestries - The Tapestry House - Jacquard Woven Tapestries

Select a category below to view the complete collection.

www.thetapestryhouse.com

One moment, please...

 

[tmtomh]

I tried out @amirm 's general advice not to absorb sidewall first reflections and removed panels I had in those locations - I am a believer now, since removing them didn't harm the precision of the soundstage imaging and resulted in a nice, albeit modest, widening of the perceived soundstage.

But for ceilings I remain a firm believer in absorption, if you are experiencing audible flutter echo or reverb-based loss of clarity in the midrange and treble frequencies. In my experience it doesn't need to be done all over the ceiling - it's not a restaurant with people talking everywhere, it's a residential room with the speakers and prime listening position each in a single, well-defined area. Something like a 4-ft by 4-ft square, aka two standard 2x4 panels, about halfway between the speaker baffles and the seated listening position, can in my experience really deaden an excessively reverberant room at the listening position.

As for thickness, my understanding is that a 6-inch panel should give you pretty effective absorption from about 1kHz on up, and a 4-inch panel might do fine too for all I know.

As always, happy to be corrected by Amir and/or any of our more knowledgeable members.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I tried out @amirm 's general advice not to absorb sidewall first reflections and removed panels I had in those locations - I am a believer now, since removing them didn't harm the precision of the soundstage imaging and resulted in a nice, albeit modest, widening of the perceived soundstage.

But for ceilings I remain a firm believer in absorption, if you are experiencing audible flutter echo or reverb-based loss of clarity in the midrange and treble frequencies. In my experience it doesn't need to be done all over the ceiling - it's not a restaurant with people talking everywhere, it's a residential room with the speakers and prime listening position each in a single, well-defined area. Something like a 4-ft by 4-ft square, aka two standard 2x4 panels, about halfway between the speaker baffles and the seated listening position, can in my experience really deaden an excessively reverberant room at the listening position.

As for thickness, my understanding is that a 6-inch panel should give you pretty effective absorption from about 1kHz on up, and a 4-inch panel might do fine too for all I know.

As always, happy to be corrected by Amir and/or any of our more knowledgeable members.

There are different schools of thought on room acoustics. But one has to treat the room and speakers as a system. And that means the room acoustics have to work with the radiation patterns of the speakers and the design philosophies of the speaker designers. If you have speakers that were borne out of the Toole/Olive school of speaker design it makes perfect sense to keep the side walls reflective.


OTOH if one comes from the school of thought that anything added by the listening room is a coloration and only conflicts with the content and spatial cues on the recording then side wall reflections, all reflections are unwanted.

Personally I subscribe to the latter philosophy.

Either way it’s something that has to be carefully considered before buying speakers. It will start with the raw room and what limitations you have on modifying it. And of course budget

 

[amirm]

OTOH if one comes from the school of thought that anything added by the listening room is a coloration and only conflicts with the content and spatial cues on the recording then side wall reflections, all reflections are unwanted.

Except it doesn't work that way. Your brain adapts to those constant reflections and filters them out.

Where this doesn't work is when reflections are late arriving as to be considered secondary events. Or be long enough to interfere with speech intelligibility. For these, you can look at RT60 or just listen in the room and determine how live it is.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Except it doesn't work that way. Your brain adapts to those constant reflections and filters them out.

Where this doesn't work is when reflections are late arriving as to be considered secondary events. Or be long enough to interfere with speech intelligibility. For these, you can look at RT60 or just listen in the room and determine how live it is.

Except it does work that way. Your brain has to work overtime to do the filtering and the conflicts are never fully resolved. Preferences are unarguable but the differences are real and quite audible. Room reflections do conflict with the content of the recordings and spatial cues as well as clarity are compromised.

If you are happy adapting to compromised playback that is a personal choice. If you like the added coloration of early side wall reflections that is a preference that I will not argue.

I have no problem adapting to a portable speaker to enjoy music on the road and at work. But I prefer uncompromised playback when given the option.

 

[CapMan]

My personal experience is that I find it easier to hold onto the stereo image with side and rear wall treatment of first reflection points.

It takes some brightness out of the room, which I prefer, but makes the sound a bit less spacious, if that is the right word.

 

[tifune]

EQ with additional bass drivers helps... but not for everything.

Thanks for putting that together! luckily, if I'm reading attached 8361dlbc right, DLBC took care of that already. Not sure what's happening from 140-175Hz on R side (attached), though.

If that were my room, I would play with the toe of the speakers. Maybe crossing in front of the listener, to bring down sidewall first reflections, maybe more toed out. I would try to find a set up where my problematic modes were least problematic.

Then I would EQ as much as I could.

Then I would call it a day.

But, depending on what is behind the listener, I might (might) treat the heck out of the back of the room. Let the front be the front, try to kill as much sound that went past me as possible.

Thanks, I haven't tried significant toe-in just yet. With DLBC, overall it sounds good to me but I can definitely hear the echo (as one would expect). Basically, there is no rear wall - it opens into another room (attached). Very much hoping ART lives up to marketing, but as of yet not available at any reasonable price.

Those speakers don't really have a narrow horizontal disperson. You'll get pretty strong reflections from both side walls with such radiation pattern.

I would considering building something thicker myself here and put in between some of the beams and perhaps combine it with some diffusion if aesthetics allow it. Covering the whole ceiling with something too absorptive of highs wouldn't be a good choice, though the room IMO badly needs something to break up flutter echo and minimize reflections.

Can you give some examples of speakers that you have in mind? How thick for in between the beams? The aesthetics aspect is the (very) hard part

 

[Bjorn]

Can you give some examples of speakers that you have in mind? How thick for in between the beams? The aesthetics aspect is the (very) hard part

I don't have any in mind as I don't know your budget or what you can live with in size.

With all those speaker in such a reflective room with a lot of high gains reflections and flutter-echo, and if the ceiling is the only place you can put treatment, I would cover the more or less the whole ceiling with a combination of absorption, diffusion and bass trapping is possible. Where to use what depends very much on aethetics, budget, and the specular reflections need to be looked at more throughly. There's no quick answer here.

 

[ernestcarl]

Not sure what's happening from 140-175Hz on R side (attached), though.

Can't say from just looking at a glance at these two measurements (complex sum) which boundary(ies) or secondary source exactly is the principal culprit. But try measuring while pulling your mains forward a few inches at a time in spaced increments -- you need to turn off the sub or measure each speaker separately to isolate the issue further.

Also see Genelec's own note on "Wall Reflections and Cancellations" here:

Monitor Placement - Genelec.com

To create the ideal listening experience, several aspects need to be taken into account when placing the monitors within the listening space. First, you need to identify the listening area within the space and consider where the listener will be placed in relation to the space as well as the...

www.genelec.com

 

[krabapple]

Except it does work that way. Your brain has to work overtime to do the filtering

lol, has anyone measured this overtime effort?

Is it what people mean by 'listener fatigue'?

and the conflicts are never fully resolved. Preferences are unarguable but the differences are real and quite audible. Room reflections do conflict with the content of the recordings and spatial cues as well as clarity are compromised.

Toole was concerned with 'envelopment' , which his and others' research showed was desirable to some -- mainly consumers, less so music production engineers.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

lol, has anyone measured this overtime effort?

Yes. Edgar Choueiri and his team at Princeton have done so extensively

Is it what people mean by 'listener fatigue'?

Yes. Edgar found this to be a major source of listener fatigue.

Toole was concerned with 'envelopment' , which his and others' research showed was desirable to some -- mainly consumers, less so music production engineers.

Envelopment certainly is something most listeners prefer. And one can get it through different means. No doubt when Toole did his research his findings were that envelopment via side wall reflections was mostly preferred to none in a two channel stereo playback system. But it is limited in its effectiveness, not true to the source material and comes with baggage. That being a far more reverberant room. Those reflective walls are not limited to first order reflections. They are the gift that keep on giving for the entire RT 60.

And now we have other, newer and better means of achieving envelopment. Multi channel and cross talk cancellation. And in the case of cross talk cancellation we have a means that does not add to or alter the original source material for standard two channel stereo recordings. Unfortunately for multichannel most of the body of stereo recordings will require some revisionism in upmixing to achieve envelopment.

But for either of these newer ways of achieving envelopment the less we hear the listening room the better they work.

And even back when Toole did the research and drew upon previous research that suggested side wall reflections were a good thing there was not a consensus. Ethan Winer and James Johnston both agreed then and still do agree that hearing the listening room is an undesirable thing.

 

[krabapple]

Yes. Edgar Choueiri and his team at Princeton have done so extensively

Yes. Edgar found this to be a major source of listener fatigue.

Ah yes, the BACCH guy, you were touting him elsewhere on ASR.

Can you summarize the amount of fatigue my brain can be expected to endure if I don't damp early reflections? (For the record: I do, but its because my room has hellacious flutter echo if I don't)

Envelopment certainly is something most listeners prefer. And one can get it through different means. No doubt when Toole did his research his findings were that envelopment via side wall reflections was mostly preferred to none in a two channel stereo playback system. But it is limited in its effectiveness, not true to the source material and comes with baggage. That being a far more reverberant room. Those reflective walls are not limited to first order reflections. They are the gift that keep on giving for the entire RT 60.

...aaaand....off we go on crosstalk cancellation again:

And now we have other, newer and better means of achieving envelopment. Multi channel and cross talk cancellation. And in the case of cross talk cancellation we have a means that does not add to or alter the original source material for standard two channel stereo recordings. Unfortunately for multichannel most of the body of stereo recordings will require some revisionism in upmixing to achieve envelopment.

But for either of these newer ways of achieving envelopment the less we hear the listening room the better they work.

And even back when Toole did the research and drew upon previous research that suggested side wall reflections were a good thing there was not a consensus. Ethan Winer and James Johnston both agreed then and still do agree that hearing the listening room is an undesirable thing.

Ethan is a nice guy, but he sells wall treatments and he's definitely not at JJ's level; pairing them does your argument no service, to me.

 

[amirm]

Except it does work that way. Your brain has to work overtime to do the filtering and the conflicts are never fully resolved.

Have a candy bar and you will reward your brain with all the calories it needs for that work.

Preferences are unarguable but the differences are real and quite audible. Room reflections do conflict with the content of the recordings and spatial cues as well as clarity are compromised.

You must be going crazy listening to your loved ones talking in rooms with all those reflections. I suggest buying a lot more candy bars to reward it.

If you are happy adapting to compromised playback that is a personal choice. If you like the added coloration of early side wall reflections that is a preference that I will not argue.

I have no problem adapting to a portable speaker to enjoy music on the road and at work. But I prefer uncompromised playback when given the option.

How is your brain deriving more enjoyment with reflections if according to your concept it is struggling with it? Surely that is a reward that it likes to see...