• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Room Treatments in the Real World

FeddyLost

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 24, 2020
Messages
752
Likes
542
It's kind of an abandoned concept, right? Since engineers mostly monitor in the very near field anyway
AFAIK they use different speakers if possible.
Typical mastering studio uses main monitors.

Never heard a room like that, but they say it becomes bigger?
If you can't absorb unwanted sound, you'll need to reroute it or properly scatter to avoid comb filtering and to exploit psychoacoustical mechanisms (ITD gap).
All this requires some space.
Because of this, if room is already small, correct reflecting room is impossible.
My room was small, so I absorb.
 

MarnixM

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2020
Messages
93
Likes
98
Location
Netherlands
Keeping in mind, open baffle speakers function differently and a good part of their sound is based on the rear wall reflections. There is also the matter of personal preference.
That might be the reason why Linkwitz likes "enough" RT60 reflections, where NIN likes rooms with low RT60. My personal preference are Maggies, so also open systems. I added next to both planes two omnidirectional soft dome tweeters getting active around 5KHz.
 

Attachments

  • 20210628_120231.jpg
    20210628_120231.jpg
    138.7 KB · Views: 32
Last edited:

notsodeadlizard

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2023
Messages
403
Likes
362
In real world and in real living (not a specially prepared for listening) room in this world in the average case, improvements will be highly questionable.
You can think of it as a form of entertainment, you can think of it as a marketing tool to increase sales and increase the cost of equipment.
But it certainly cannot be considered a panacea, no matter what anyone writes on any forums.
Perhaps all these tricks are good for near-field monitors that are used in professional processes in prepared studios, but no miracle happened with my floor standers (and nothing happened at all).
So far, my personal experience is this - you play with the DSP in a "room treatment" for two weeks, then the DSP is disconnected from the audio path and collects dust as a confirmation "I tried to follow the fashion" (and that costs money too.). Of course, you can leave the DSP, but there is little sense in this because the result is very poorly tangible, and there is no particular need to further "break" the already dubious quality of some digital original.
It is much more useful to find what in the room rattles from powerful low frequencies and rings from intense high frequencies. Sometimes that doesn't help either. For example, in my case, the bass of my speakers just "rock" the sofa, but I removed all the other overtones using the simplest methods (and still, something sometimes "rings" inside the TV).
The simple sound absorption where it gives an effect is much more useful (this depends on the specific room and is achieved only through trial and error, some highly scientific calculations and even FEM are probably possible, but the time and effort for their implementation are not acceptable for the task's essence).
I think so.
 

Trell

Major Contributor
Joined
May 13, 2021
Messages
2,752
Likes
3,285
So far, my personal experience is this - you play with the DSP in a "room treatment" for two weeks, then the DSP is disconnected from the audio path and collects dust as a confirmation "I tried to follow the fashion" (and that costs money too.). Of course, you can leave the DSP, but there is little sense in this because the result is very poorly tangible, and there is no particular need to further "break" the already dubious quality of some digital original.
In most rooms EQ is needed to knock down the big bass peaks you typically see in small rooms. Very few people, even here on ASR, are going to install bass traps effective below 100 Hz or so.
 

notsodeadlizard

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2023
Messages
403
Likes
362
Very likely, I won't argue. In my case, the effect was completely imperceptible, I'm only talking about this.
In most rooms EQ is needed to knock down the big bass peaks you typically see in small rooms. Very few people, even here on ASR, are going to install bass traps effective below 100 Hz or so.
 

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
7,835
Likes
16,498
Location
Monument, CO
In real world and in real living (not a specially prepared for listening) room in this world in the average case, improvements will be highly questionable.
You can think of it as a form of entertainment, you can think of it as a marketing tool to increase sales and increase the cost of equipment.
But it certainly cannot be considered a panacea, no matter what anyone writes on any forums.
Perhaps all these tricks are good for near-field monitors that are used in professional processes in prepared studios, but no miracle happened with my floor standers (and nothing happened at all).
So far, my personal experience is this - you play with the DSP in a "room treatment" for two weeks, then the DSP is disconnected from the audio path and collects dust as a confirmation "I tried to follow the fashion" (and that costs money too.). Of course, you can leave the DSP, but there is little sense in this because the result is very poorly tangible, and there is no particular need to further "break" the already dubious quality of some digital original.
It is much more useful to find what in the room rattles from powerful low frequencies and rings from intense high frequencies. Sometimes that doesn't help either. For example, in my case, the bass of my speakers just "rock" the sofa, but I removed all the other overtones using the simplest methods (and still, something sometimes "rings" inside the TV).
The simple sound absorption where it gives an effect is much more useful (this depends on the specific room and is achieved only through trial and error, some highly scientific calculations and even FEM are probably possible, but the time and effort for their implementation are not acceptable for the task's essence).
I think so.
That is just one case with one listener, unless I misunderstand you? What was your sample size? Back when I was "in the biz" I installed many systems (hundreds) and room treatment was invariably a positive improvement for the listeners. My own room is pretty heavily treated and I much prefer the sound that way. Just a couple of panels in an average room was enough to make a difference, though those with large enough rooms or more directional speakers to minimize the impact of early reflections benefited less.

The value of room treatment depends very much on the room, speakers, and listener preference. In many cases I have installed absorbers or diffusors (more rarely) at first reflection points in an average living room with the customer initially noticing little change. Upon pointing out the differences, typically a tighter image with resulting cleaner midrange, the reaction was often "how did I not notice that!" IME it tends to be subtle much of the time, more noticeable when taking it away than when initially adding it (perhaps a reflection of lack of trained listeners). A number of times I installed panels, left them for a week or two, then pulled them down and the difference was much more obvious to the listeners. I did rarely use them to control low bass modes, there are better ways to do that, but cleaning up the midrange and highs was of great benefit.

Similar things can occur with DSP or various room EQ. People say the same things about the need to add subs (big speakers do not obviate the need for subs IME). To each his own.
 

Bjorn

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
1,286
Likes
2,562
Location
Norway
That is just one case with one listener, unless I misunderstand you? What was your sample size? Back when I was "in the biz" I installed many systems (hundreds) and room treatment was invariably a positive improvement for the listeners. My own room is pretty heavily treated and I much prefer the sound that way. Just a couple of panels in an average room was enough to make a difference, though those with large enough rooms or more directional speakers to minimize the impact of early reflections benefited less.

The value of room treatment depends very much on the room, speakers, and listener preference. In many cases I have installed absorbers or diffusors (more rarely) at first reflection points in an average living room with the customer initially noticing little change. Upon pointing out the differences, typically a tighter image with resulting cleaner midrange, the reaction was often "how did I not notice that!" IME it tends to be subtle much of the time, more noticeable when taking it away than when initially adding it (perhaps a reflection of lack of trained listeners). A number of times I installed panels, left them for a week or two, then pulled them down and the difference was much more obvious to the listeners. I did rarely use them to control low bass modes, there are better ways to do that, but cleaning up the midrange and highs was of great benefit.

Similar things can occur with DSP or various room EQ. People say the same things about the need to add subs (big speakers do not obviate the need for subs IME). To each his own.
I have similar experiences and it raises the question whether a very short listening comparison is particurlary valid here. One possible reason is that we need to hear music material that "triggers" the difference well enough. So we may not hear it immadiately with what we're listening too. The other is what you mention concerning not being trained.

A subjective experience here. I installed many years ago one pressure based trap for low frequencies, 50 Hz area I think it was. The measurement showed primarily a difference in the time domain with shorter decay and less resonance. When I started listening I didn't really hear a difference. So some weeks later I thought I would remove it and place it in another room. I did, but when it was removed and I started listening to music there again I noticed a big difference. The bass wasn't as tight and clean as before. So the first listening impression didn't reveal the difference sufficiently, but listening over time did. Yeah I know, this raises the question of placebo for many. But we're talking here about something that measured quite differently.
 

dasdoing

Major Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
4,209
Likes
2,675
Location
Salvador-Bahia-Brasil
If you're unaccustomed to rooms with treated first reflections, it may require time for you to transition to the new ambiance (the one in the recording). Initially, you'll long for the room, but gradually you'll enter the new one. Much like viewing 3D objects on a 2D surface, it demands some imagination and avoiding resistance to fully experience the effect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NIN

NIN

Active Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2021
Messages
204
Likes
198
In most rooms EQ is needed to knock down the big bass peaks you typically see in small rooms. Very few people, even here on ASR, are going to install bass traps effective below 100 Hz or so.
Well, then I'm one of them. Have my effective to around 30 hz.
 
Last edited:

NIN

Active Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2021
Messages
204
Likes
198
If you're unaccustomed to rooms with treated first reflections, it may require time for you to transition to the new ambiance (the one in the recording). Initially, you'll long for the room, but gradually you'll enter the new one. Much like viewing 3D objects on a 2D surface, it demands some imagination and avoiding resistance to fully experience the effect.
My room treat the first reflection with absorption. I prefer that over other choices.
 

ozzy9832001

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2023
Messages
404
Likes
257
That is just one case with one listener, unless I misunderstand you? What was your sample size? Back when I was "in the biz" I installed many systems (hundreds) and room treatment was invariably a positive improvement for the listeners. My own room is pretty heavily treated and I much prefer the sound that way. Just a couple of panels in an average room was enough to make a difference, though those with large enough rooms or more directional speakers to minimize the impact of early reflections benefited less.

The value of room treatment depends very much on the room, speakers, and listener preference. In many cases I have installed absorbers or diffusors (more rarely) at first reflection points in an average living room with the customer initially noticing little change. Upon pointing out the differences, typically a tighter image with resulting cleaner midrange, the reaction was often "how did I not notice that!" IME it tends to be subtle much of the time, more noticeable when taking it away than when initially adding it (perhaps a reflection of lack of trained listeners). A number of times I installed panels, left them for a week or two, then pulled them down and the difference was much more obvious to the listeners. I did rarely use them to control low bass modes, there are better ways to do that, but cleaning up the midrange and highs was of great benefit.

Similar things can occur with DSP or various room EQ. People say the same things about the need to add subs (big speakers do not obviate the need for subs IME). To each his own.
This pretty much sums it up.

I couldn't imagine not having some form of DSP or room treatment to help with my 140hz room mode. The sound it produces is just nasty and grating and really messes things up further up the spectrum as well.

Room size and distance from the speakers will have a key role in how much treatment is good.

At times, I think treatment is definitely overrated...probably because of the cost, but once you start making your own panels and stuff it's really not that bad.
 

youngho

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2019
Messages
486
Likes
799
I have similar experiences and it raises the question whether a very short listening comparison is particurlary valid here. One possible reason is that we need to hear music material that "triggers" the difference well enough. So we may not hear it immadiately with what we're listening too. The other is what you mention concerning not being trained.

A subjective experience here. I installed many years ago one pressure based trap for low frequencies, 50 Hz area I think it was. The measurement showed primarily a difference in the time domain with shorter decay and less resonance. When I started listening I didn't really hear a difference. So some weeks later I thought I would remove it and place it in another room. I did, but when it was removed and I started listening to music there again I noticed a big difference. The bass wasn't as tight and clean as before. So the first listening impression didn't reveal the difference sufficiently, but listening over time did. Yeah I know, this raises the question of placebo for many. But we're talking here about something that measured quite differently.
I believe that you're both discussing what @Thomas Lund terms "slow listening": https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=20547
 

Bjorn

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
1,286
Likes
2,562
Location
Norway
I believe that you're both discussing what @Thomas Lund terms "slow listening": https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=20547
It could also be the first tracks I listened to after applying the bass trap simply didn't have content that triggered the resonance I had just treated.

I would think that you have the right music material for the test, doing some training with sufficient trials would be sufficient to teach the brain to more easily distuingish the differences.
 
Top Bottom