If Room Treatment is difficult, expensive and often ineffective, why are so many on reddit in love with it?

[bluefuzz]

but now the pendulum seems to be swinging back

Well, let's hope so for the sake of people's sanity if not for the sake of audio quality ...

 

[HiMu]

https://jhbrandt.net/assets/drawing/104.pdf

The one you highlighted is not normal behaviour for porous material. There is usually a gradual loss of effectiveness, not flat response and then a sharp drop. To me that indicates tuning in one form or another.

Compare to the data given in the Owens-Corning datasheet: https://dcpd6wotaa0mb.cloudfront.ne...lation-Product-Data-Sheet.pdf?v=1786524537000

I used 200mm of insulation and panel resonators in a studio previously.

Not normal for what kind of porous material? In that 104 drawing there are results for 4 different products/materials, which show different absorbing charcteristics. If you look at the other drawings 106 and 108 (just change the number on the link you provided), there are graphs for 6" of FG & 8" OC Pink FG tests, which show different curves.

The OC's tests you linked were not done at 4" thickness for the 703 FRK & 705 FRK, and their results doesn't cover frequencies below 125Hz.

What kind of insulation? I have used full back wall 3,7m x 2,2m covered with 300mm (wood fiber and rockwool) based on porous absorber calculators and they don't work as the calculations suggests. I've tried 3 different materials / treatments with GFR of 4000-10000 Pa.s/m2, ranging from 200mm up to 400mm flax/linen insulation in back corners.

Currently trying to locate 706FRK equivalent material to change side wall and ceiling absorbers. Back wall has 200mm of OCPink equivalent behind wood slats and it works better that the previous materials in same configuration, or the thicker layers without the slats, that I had before.

 

[Truth Ness]

It sounds the same everywhere, including in the next room. ART neutralizes the room, at least how I have everything set up. In my opinion, ART is revolutionary, requiring only modest effort beyond conventional DSP.

Then please provide some measurements at various positions/heights etc. throughout the room to back up what you claim.
If you're using digital room correction then you'll have a measurement mic to do it.
Because what you say is just not possible, no matter how much treatment or DSP power you have. It's still physics.

Every speaker has different horizontal and vertical off axis frequency response / dispersion, omni at low frequencies vs 2pi at high frequencies etc. Your software fixes all that? How come no speaker manufacturer has used that to create the perfect speaker?
You have different reflections and cancellations/peaks at different locations and SBIR and you have room modes which have a different effect at different positions throughout the room (especially if you've no physical treatment installed).
You have different delay times for every speaker if leaving the center listening position.
If your ears are not at the acoutic center height of your speakers alone has massive impact on the frequency response. Just to name a few issues with speakers in a room and speakers in general.
No way everything can be solved for every position. Or does your software track where your head is in the room and adapt in realtime? I highly doubt that and even then.
It might sound similar at various seating positions inside the listening positions' window. But it sure won't sound the same everywhere. You can't overcome physics.
Go into a room's corner. Sounds the same? Come on...
"Neutralize" a room by DSP / DRC? You must be kidding.
Show full measurements including ETC/decay times etc at various positions (best to use REW and upload the mdat), then we will see how "neutralized" your room is (or not).
I bet even for your main listening position your room is far from "neutralized".
I can't take that serious .

And that it sounds the same even in the next room must be a joke and is ridiculous at best.

 

[BJL]

Then please provide some measurements at various positions/heights etc. throughout the room to back up what you claim.
If you're using digital room correction then you'll have a measurement mic to do it.
Because what you say is just not possible, no matter how much treatment or DSP power you have. It's still physics.

Every speaker has different horizontal and vertical off axis frequency response / dispersion, omni at low frequencies vs 2pi at high frequencies etc. Your software fixes all that? How come no speaker manufacturer has used that to create the perfect speaker?
You have different reflections and cancellations/peaks at different locations and SBIR and you have room modes which have a different effect at different positions throughout the room (especially if you've no physical treatment installed).
You have different delay times for every speaker if leaving the center listening position.
If your ears are not at the acoutic center height of your speakers alone has massive impact on the frequency response. Just to name a few issues with speakers in a room and speakers in general.
No way everything can be solved for every position. Or does your software track where your head is in the room and adapt in realtime? I highly doubt that and even then.
It might sound similar at various seating positions inside the listening positions' window. But it sure won't sound the same everywhere. You can't overcome physics.
Go into a room's corner. Sounds the same? Come on...
"Neutralize" a room by DSP / DRC? You must be kidding.
Show full measurements including ETC/decay times etc at various positions (best to use REW and upload the mdat), then we will see how "neutralized" your room is (or not).
I bet even for your main listening position your room is far from "neutralized".
I can't take that serious .

And that it sounds the same even in the next room must be a joke and is ridiculous at best.

I don't have the time or energy to take measurements, nor do I care.

I do not need measurements to confirm what I hear. You may think it is ridiculous, and that is fine with me. Different strokes for different folks. I am just reporting my experience. Take it as you wish.

Personally, I think that you are mixing up Dirac Live with Dirac ART. They work completely differently. And you are probably considering this solely in terms of movies or TV (because of your reference to soundtracks and head position.) I am reporting on my experience music listening. I don't move around when I watch a movie. I sometimes listen to music from different locations, depending upon what I am doing. With ART engaged, music always sounds great, where ever I might be.

And perhaps you need better ear level speakers.

 

[Cote Dazur]

I do not need measurements to confirm what I hear

Interesting comment.

 

[BJL]

Then please provide some measurements at various positions/heights etc. throughout the room to back up what you claim.
If you're using digital room correction then you'll have a measurement mic to do it.
Because what you say is just not possible, no matter how much treatment or DSP power you have. It's still physics.

Every speaker has different horizontal and vertical off axis frequency response / dispersion, omni at low frequencies vs 2pi at high frequencies etc. Your software fixes all that? How come no speaker manufacturer has used that to create the perfect speaker?
You have different reflections and cancellations/peaks at different locations and SBIR and you have room modes which have a different effect at different positions throughout the room (especially if you've no physical treatment installed).
You have different delay times for every speaker if leaving the center listening position.
If your ears are not at the acoutic center height of your speakers alone has massive impact on the frequency response. Just to name a few issues with speakers in a room and speakers in general.
No way everything can be solved for every position. Or does your software track where your head is in the room and adapt in realtime? I highly doubt that and even then.
It might sound similar at various seating positions inside the listening positions' window. But it sure won't sound the same everywhere. You can't overcome physics.
Go into a room's corner. Sounds the same? Come on...
"Neutralize" a room by DSP / DRC? You must be kidding.
Show full measurements including ETC/decay times etc at various positions (best to use REW and upload the mdat), then we will see how "neutralized" your room is (or not).
I bet even for your main listening position your room is far from "neutralized".
I can't take that serious .

And that it sounds the same even in the next room must be a joke and is ridiculous at best.

Also, I am not convinced that your REW measurements accurately or validly reflect what ART is providing in use. Apparently, REW measurements use frequency sweeps. ART works with complex signals redirecting audio to different locations in order to neutralize problems identified. I do not see how a frequency sweep will possibly measure what ART is doing.

 

[kemmler3D]

Then please provide some measurements at various positions/heights etc. throughout the room to back up what you claim.
If you're using digital room correction then you'll have a measurement mic to do it.
Because what you say is just not possible, no matter how much treatment or DSP power you have. It's still physics.

Every speaker has different horizontal and vertical off axis frequency response / dispersion, omni at low frequencies vs 2pi at high frequencies etc. Your software fixes all that? How come no speaker manufacturer has used that to create the perfect speaker?
You have different reflections and cancellations/peaks at different locations and SBIR and you have room modes which have a different effect at different positions throughout the room (especially if you've no physical treatment installed).
You have different delay times for every speaker if leaving the center listening position.
If your ears are not at the acoutic center height of your speakers alone has massive impact on the frequency response. Just to name a few issues with speakers in a room and speakers in general.
No way everything can be solved for every position. Or does your software track where your head is in the room and adapt in realtime? I highly doubt that and even then.
It might sound similar at various seating positions inside the listening positions' window. But it sure won't sound the same everywhere. You can't overcome physics.
Go into a room's corner. Sounds the same? Come on...
"Neutralize" a room by DSP / DRC? You must be kidding.
Show full measurements including ETC/decay times etc at various positions (best to use REW and upload the mdat), then we will see how "neutralized" your room is (or not).
I bet even for your main listening position your room is far from "neutralized".
I can't take that serious .

And that it sounds the same even in the next room must be a joke and is ridiculous at best.

I think this is a bit of a semantic argument, I also don't imagine it sounds literally the same, but I could believe it sounds pretty even. Dirac ART uses active cancellation sort of similar to noise canceling headphones, it's a very different approach from simple EQ and the results I've seen in the ART thread often look really good.

However @BJL - REW will definitely show the results, (many examples in the thread) and you may not need measurements to demonstrate what you hear, but the readers of the forum generally do since they haven't heard it.

 

[LiveTek]

I have a love hate relationship with room treatment. I like building them and planning out the space, but nearly every time I put them in things just sound worse. Not so much the speaker, but being in the room is no longer comfortable. Walls feel like sonic black holes and my brain is confused that I'm near walls but there's no reflections.

As a result, my treatments just kind of sit around, they get moved around occasionally but I honestly kind of prefer to be in my spaces when they have no treatment, or just minimal treatment.

I do notice, that no matter what I try in my smaller spaces, they just don't sound good. I try to just to be in spaces that are large enough to not feel like I need to treat much beyond curtains and a rug. I've considered making some D&Dc clones or similar cardioid speaker to try and get around the treatment issue. However I'm not sure how much I value certain reflections. I do know that I have never liked treating the walls to my sides.

 

[HiMu]

I have a love hate relationship with room treatment. I like building them and planning out the space, but nearly every time I put them in things just sound worse. Not so much the speaker, but being in the room is no longer comfortable. Walls feel like sonic black holes and my brain is confused that I'm near walls but there's no reflections.

Try covering the panels with wood slats or similar reflective fronts, it's quite beneficial to keep the room feeling like a room. Put the slats on a slight curve and you'll get diffraction with phase change -> sounds even more spacious than flat surface of slats. Significantly better approach than bare, fabric covered absorbers.

 

[Sal1950]

I have a love hate relationship with room treatment. I like building them and planning out the space, but nearly every time I put them in things just sound worse. Not so much the speaker, but being in the room is no longer comfortable. Walls feel like sonic black holes and my brain is confused that I'm near walls but there's no reflections.

To me it's better than feeling/sounding like I'm in the shower. JMHO
YMMV

 

[JPA]

Here's a question for the acoustically inclined: it's been shown that folded helmholtz resonators of relatively small size (but large effective length) can effectively absorb low frequencies. They're not hard to produce on a 3D printer. I haven't really seen anyone commercializing this concept or even trying it DIY, (although I haven't checked DIYAudio in a while.)

What say ye? Would you hang a few dozen small plastic boxes (say 20cm x 20cm x 5cm) on your wall to deal with bass problems, assuming they really work?

Maybe if it matters to the discussion: you can paint them, unlike porous treatments.

In the family room, no. In the home theater? Maybe, depending on the cost. I know that you know that even with Helmholtz resonators you need a lot of surface area to reduce <150Hz modes.

 

[BJL]

I think this is a bit of a semantic argument, I also don't imagine it sounds literally the same, but I could believe it sounds pretty even. Dirac ART uses active cancellation sort of similar to noise canceling headphones, it's a very different approach from simple EQ and the results I've seen in the ART thread often look really good.

No not literally identical. For concentrated listening, I head to the main position. But it does sound great elsewhere, like my desk which is inconveniently located in back of the surround back speakers. No odd reflections from the walls or ceiling, stereo imaging intact, Atmos music retains balance, mono recordings sound just fine. Nice even sound throughout the room. No booming or bloat anywhere.

If I owned a processor with an ART license, I would add speakers for a better ART calibration before I spent time and money trying to make a physical acoustic treatment, (e.g. those with a 2.1 system already using ART.)

 

[Mort]

Also, I am not convinced that your REW measurements accurately or validly reflect what ART is providing in use. Apparently, REW measurements use frequency sweeps. ART works with complex signals redirecting audio to different locations in order to neutralize problems identified. I do not see how a frequency sweep will possibly measure what ART is doing.

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean the science isn't valid. As the kids say, that's a you thing.

 

[kemmler3D]

Maybe, depending on the cost.

For the sake of argument, let's say the 3D printing file costs some nominal amount for each frequency, ($20?) and printing the resonators yourself might cost $2-5 per panel depending on what filament you use and what kind of deal you get on it. Let's figure each one covers roughly a square foot, since you may want space in between. So treating a room if you print yourself might take between $200 - $2000+ depending on size of room and amount of treatment needed.

Haven't thought about actually printing them to sell myself. I'm currently very slowly working on a store to sell 3D printing files for QRD diffusers, but it occurred to me resonators might be more practical and useful.

 

[BJL]

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean the science isn't valid. As the kids say, that's a you thing.

Oh definitely. The images of REW measurements mean absolutely nothing to me, just pretty pictures.

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

Well, in my opinion, the OP’s presentation of the question is a bit harsh. It is not difficult, it does not have to be expensive, and it can be effective, depending on what you want to achieve, and if those are realistic goals. Room treatment cannot change physics! You have to have some realistic, goals and understanding, depending on your room size and shape. But basic room treatment is important. Room treatment is also furnishings, that’s a given. Then you can tune and adjust a bit more. Speaker positioning in relation to front wall is also important when it comes to reflections, and the necessity if too close to have some absorption behind them. You can build anything that you can buy. There are plans everywhere. Foam cheap from the right suppliers. Home Depot has everything else that you need. You don’t necessarily it a lot, and realistically, you don’t need any you can just enjoy your system. But it can be beneficial to try to tweak it a little bit. The results are rewarding if done right. YMMV

 

[RexrothPigeon]

With ART engaged, music always sounds great, where ever I might be.

This may certainly be true, and I don't doubt you, but the earlier claim that music sounds the same at all positions in the room is a physical impossibility.

 

[JPA]

For the sake of argument, let's say the 3D printing file costs some nominal amount for each frequency, ($20?) and printing the resonators yourself might cost $2-5 per panel depending on what filament you use and what kind of deal you get on it. Let's figure each one covers roughly a square foot, since you may want space in between. So treating a room if you print yourself might take between $200 - $2000+ depending on size of room and amount of treatment needed.

Haven't thought about actually printing them to sell myself. I'm currently very slowly working on a store to sell 3D printing files for QRD diffusers, but it occurred to me resonators might be more practical and useful.

I'm an inveterate DIYer, but I'm not interested in printing my own diffusers or absorbers. I tried to make my own (nonprinted) diffractals a long time ago, but that didn't go well. Since then I've decided the benefits of diffusers for small rooms have been oversold. I do like the ones you've printed, though.

I might be interested if you decide to sell resonators.

 

[BJL]

This may certainly be true, and I don't doubt you, but the earlier claim that music sounds the same at all positions in the room is a physical impossibility.

Impossible? Strong words. Have you set up a 9.1.6 ART system? It is incredible, completely neutralizes the room. Like having the musicians in your room. Of course, I do have a wool rug on the floor and (cheap) full length curtains covering the glass on either end. That is all.

It helps that I use the wonderful Revel F206 speakers x7 and F36 x2 back surrounds, and SVS Ultra Elevations x6 for heights. And the superb Tide 16 processor.

Impossible? Not impossible. Set up a system like mine before you say impossible.

 

[kemmler3D]

I tried to make my own (nonprinted) diffractals a long time ago, but that didn't go well.

Hmm, I've thought about printing some but building them (especially any higher-N fractal designs) via traditional methods (wood?) always seemed nuts to me.

I do think a 2D fractal design is possible with 3D printing, but I am not sure the performance would like, make sense? I think you get a lot of viscous losses with wells that small. It would be a wacky diffuser and somewhat uncontrolled absorber.

Since then I've decided the benefits of diffusers for small rooms have been oversold. I do like the ones you've printed, though.

I don't think the benefits of traditional diffusers are so wonderful for small rooms unless you manage to cover whole walls. If that's an option pretty much any treatment is on the table, i.e. not realistic for almost anyone.

I think BAD diffusers might be better, I have a thought on printing one or two for front wall / ceiling. Still swirling in the mists of the non-urgent hobby to-do list.

I might be interested if you decide to sell resonators.

I think resonators could be pretty easy to print if my initial queries to AI pan out. My vision is for a super easy print and installation job. But easy or not, it's still a few hours per plate, a few dozen or few hundred plates per room, so not a minor commitment either way. I could easily imagine finished items selling better than printing files, but on the other hand, I don't have the bandwidth (or space) to run a print farm as a side gig...