RPG Modex Edge a Resonator Bass Absorber

[pozz]

True. And while decay is important it is still far less important than linear frequency response.

I would disagree about the relative importance. Control of reverb time adds a lot to clarity, and helps with fatigue.

 

[Krunok]

I would disagree about the relative importance. Control of reverb time adds a lot to clarity, and helps with fatigue.

Whatever rocks your boat M8, even if it is the colour of the speakers.

 

[Hipper]

True. And while decay is important it is still far less important than linear frequency response.

When I was adding bass traps etc. all I was looking at was frequency response. When I looked at decay times I was staggered how effective the treatment was. Better still of course is how it sounds. Whilst I can't be sure, I feel reducing decay times has had the bigger impact - really crisp sounding bass, rhythm guitar, piano etc..

Even with EQ/DSP I think decay times are altered but perhaps not so evenly.

 

[mitchco]

Not tamed but improved!

So a lot of bass traps does do something below 100Hz but certainly does not solve the issues, in particular the big dip around 50Hz (I tried everything to solve this - moving speakers and chair, checking everything including the equaliser was working properly, and searching for peaks all around the room. I've still no idea what causes it but surprisingly adding 10dB with an equaliser was able to fill it in - to hell with the rules!).

Of course not only is the frequency response improved - much smoother, but the delay times have radically changed for the better. Indeed this is probably the biggest achievement of the room treatment (the ringing at 40Hz is mostly external traffic noise. It's clearer on a spectogram).

Looks good! But you still have about 25 dB of frequency response variation in the low end. Here's what mine looks like using the REW's waterfall display:

I have some room build up in the very low end and no matter how many bass traps I throw at it, won't be much help... But as you can see, a very flat frequency response.

I wonder what it does to the overall balance of the reverb time in the room. Since you have REW, you can switch to the RT60 display and show the balance between 100Hz to 10 kHz on the horizontal scale. Here is what mine looks like when I was reviewing the D&D 8c's:

My room is still quite lively with about 400ms of Topt (REW's measure optimised for small room acoustics as technically there is not RT60 in small rooms). I am at the top of the reccomended range for my size room which is between 200ms and 400ms. To get a similar display, use REW's overlay feature and select RT60 and it will calculate Topt for you automatically and then change the horizontal scales to 100 Hz to 10 kHz.

Like I say, I have nothing against passive acoustic treatment, I have just enough in my room to balance out the RT60 (or Topt) to be flat in my room, as you can see above, but not too dead sounding. According to Toole and JJ's research, we hear the direct sound more than the sound after it. i.e. our ability to hear through the room. If you have an opportunity to try some room correction, I think you will like what you hear. Would give you the best of both worlds, provided the room isn't overly damped at higher frequencies (hence checking the RT60/Topt above 100 Hz).

Cheers!

 

[Hipper]

Thanks Mitch.

Just for comparison, both with EQ to flatten the 20-200 region.

and RT60 Totp:

 

[mitchco]

Very nice! What are the dimensions of your room?

 

[Krunok]

Thanks Mitch.

Just for comparison, both with EQ to flatten the 20-200 region.

View attachment 32507

View attachment 32505

and RT60 Totp:

View attachment 32506

This looks much better, but I really think you should extend your EQ beyond 200Hz as this part still doesn't look very good:

Last time I've seen Topt below 200ms was a measurement for professional studio room. IMHO opinion it sounds a little dull for day to day music listening buut if that is what you prefer it's of course fine.

 

[Bounce44.1]

Thanks Mitch.

Just for comparison, both with EQ to flatten the 20-200 region.

View attachment 32507

View attachment 32505

and RT60 Totp:

View attachment 32506

You sir have done well. Are your speakers ported on the back?

 

[Absolute]

I would say that balanced frequency response and good decay in the bass are equally important. When it comes to standing waves, they are also linked. If you attack the peak in the bass with PEQs, decay will also go down. Doing this at the various peaks will both smooth out frequency response and significantly reduce ringing in the time domain. Example here from my left speaker without and with 5 bands of PEQs;

 

[Krunok]

I would say that balanced frequency response and good decay in the bass are equally important. When it comes to standing waves, they are also linked. If you attack the peak in the bass with PEQs, decay will also go down. Doing this at the various peaks will both smooth out frequency response and significantly reduce ringing in the time domain. Example here from my left speaker without and with 5 bands of PEQs;

View attachment 32517View attachment 32518

Average non-treated listening room will have decent decay but it will easilly have dip-to-peak range of more than 25 db, which is not acceptable and cannot be solved by bass traps.

As your graphs are showing you can start to analyze decay only after you fix the linearity. Before that it simply doesn't make much sense..

 

[Absolute]

Average non-treated listening room will have decent decay but it will easilly have dip-to-peak range of more than 25 db, which is not acceptable and cannot be solved by bass traps.

As your graphs are showing you can start to analyze decay only after you fix the linearity. Before that it simply doesn't make much sense..

I mostly agree. You can focus on decay without paying attention to frequency response and the sound will still be much better for it. But it'll only take you halfway there. And vice versa. Without a somewhat decent decay below 300 hz, bass will never be very articulate or particularly punchy.

 

[Hipper]

Very nice! What are the dimensions of your room?

This looks much better, but I really think you should extend your EQ beyond 200Hz as this part still doesn't look very good:

Last time I've seen Topt below 200ms was a measurement for professional studio room. IMHO opinion it sounds a little dull for day to day music listening but if that is what you prefer it's of course fine.

You sir have done well. Are your speakers ported on the back?

Thank you all. Of course I didn't post for brownie points but I'll accept them all the same.

Room dimensions - 14' x 13' x 8'. Speakers on the 14' wall, placed about 'The Thirds' set up. I'm fortunate to have a dedicated room. Here's a picture:

The speakers are VMPS RM30M from fifteen years ago:

http://pointillistic.com/vmps-audio/RM30.htm

The port is on the bottom front and underneath there are two passive woofers. There is also a side firing woofer which I have placed on the inside but of course can also be used on the outside.

You'll also notice I put panels on the outside of each speaker to prevent side wall reflections. It was more practical then placing them on the walls. These contribute a lot to the sound. I did listen with side wall reflections but I found the gains from having the panels - sharper sounding instruments - preferable. I appreciate this is a matter of taste.

I agree I should deal with above 200Hz and I will - one day!

 

[Dialectic]

Photos of a room with RPG Modex Edge:
View attachment 52351View attachment 52352

It looks beautiful in my opinion.

Lots of money spent on acoustic treatment yet nothing effective done for the first reflection off the floor.

It is important to distinguish systems that look nice and cost a fortune from ones that are properly conceived and executed.

 

[Dialectic]

Even though something better could have been done regarding the first reflections on the floor, I guess the acoustics in that room is very good: Far better than the "normal" rooms.
I recently read a post on Facebook with a photo of a woman's stereo setup which included one of the best speakers from Paradigm. One person immediately critized her room. I loved her response to that: "I have no intention of winning an audiophile contest!", and she also noted that she was very satisfied with the sound.

Furthermore, sometimes I think the persons critizing other persons rooms should show photos of their own rooms as how things should be done.

Well, if you're satisfied with the sound of your half million dollar system in an untreated (or incompetently treated) room, then good for you!

It's perfectly reasonable for anyone to criticize this listening room, nice as it looks, regardless of their own listening setup. Why would any rational person spend this kind of money and drop the gear into a room with a hardwood floor and a thin and totally ineffective carpet on the floor?

I've posted photos of my former and current listening room in other threads. All first reflection points (including the floor) are treated, and from the listening position, my comparatively modest system sounds superior to the fancy-looking megabuck systems, many of which I've heard, all over the world.

I used to screw around with fancy audiophile gear myself, but I grew out of it. I'm no longer interested in impressing uninformed middle-aged men.

 

[pozz]

untreated (or incompetently treated) room

The floor reflection is a point of debate. It has never been shown conclusively that it should be absorbed. Non-environment control room designs deliberately leave the floor reflective.

The only sure way of removing the effects of the floor reflection that I know of is to use Don Keele's CD array speakers.

 

[onion]

Well, if you're satisfied with the sound of your half million dollar system in an untreated (or incompetently treated) room, then good for you!

It's perfectly reasonable for anyone to criticize this listening room, nice as it looks, regardless of their own listening setup. Why would any rational person spend this kind of money and drop the gear into a room with a hardwood floor and a thin and totally ineffective carpet on the floor?

I've posted photos of my former and current listening room in other threads. All first reflection points (including the floor) are treated, and from the listening position, my comparatively modest system sounds superior to the fancy-looking megabuck systems, many of which I've heard, all over the world.

I used to screw around with fancy audiophile gear myself, but I grew out of it. I'm no longer interested in impressing uninformed middle-aged men.

How do you treat the floor out of interest?

Although I don't agree with the Acoustic Fields guy - Dennis Foley - on DSP to control bass, I do like his 'academy' videos. He does categorise rooms according to volume and suggests that there's no point trying to treat rooms below a certain size. The systematic approach he seems to employ - fixing the worst (low frequency energy) problems first as they impact higher frequency reflections and allow solutions like diffusors to work - also makes sense. It is marketing, but it's good marketing.

 

[Adam Bernau]

I would be very much interested in trying active bass trap, people from pro audio world are singing praises about this one, but it is definitelly not cheap, and it seems that you need two of them at least, in most situations.
https://www.psiaudio.swiss/avaa-c20-active-bass-trap/

 

[Dialectic]

How do you treat the floor out of interest?

Although I don't agree with the Acoustic Fields guy - Dennis Foley - on DSP to control bass, I do like his 'academy' videos. He does categorise rooms according to volume and suggests that there's no point trying to treat rooms below a certain size. The systematic approach he seems to employ - fixing the worst (low frequency energy) problems first as they impact higher frequency reflections and allow solutions like diffusors to work - also makes sense. It is marketing, but it's good marketing.

The floor in my listening room has carpet pad, wall-to-wall carpet, and a shag rug (approximately 1.5" thick) on top of the carpet. I formerly had a lambswool rug on top of the shag rug between the listening seat and the loudspeakers, but that rug was deemed too nice for the listening room and taken elsewhere.

 

[localhost128]

The floor reflection is a point of debate. It has never been shown conclusively that it should be absorbed. Non-environment control room designs deliberately leave the floor reflective.

because the rooms are typically designed such that a large mix board/console/desk/work-surface sufficiently blocks the floor reflection. a bit of a critical element of context to leave out regarding your statement above.

 

[localhost128]

Lots of money spent on acoustic treatment yet nothing effective done for the first reflection off the floor.

It is important to distinguish systems that look nice and cost a fortune from ones that are properly conceived and executed.

Well, if you're satisfied with the sound of your half million dollar system in an untreated (or incompetently treated) room, then good for you!

It's perfectly reasonable for anyone to criticize this listening room, nice as it looks, regardless of their own listening setup. Why would any rational person spend this kind of money and drop the gear into a room with a hardwood floor and a thin and totally ineffective carpet on the floor?

this logic doesn't make any sense to me at all.

your comment seems to insinuate that it is all for nothing if the floor reflection is not addressed. as if the rest of the room is "incompetently treated" simply because the floor is not? do kindly explain the logic in these statements.

the user could have simply had visual design requirements for the floor that superseded acoustical. or perhaps it is a mixed-use room where blockage of the floor is unwarranted.

none of which negates the other treatment that you seem to carelessly dismiss.