Ralph,
As I said my intention by using a thinner panel was to absorb more mid frequencies mostly, but maybe shift that cut off up a tiny bit higher. I have not done any calculations on this but my instinct would be that due to the high mass of the 9mm ply panel, even with the holes in it, there will be some effect at around 1KHz-3KHz or so upwards blocking the sound. I would imagine that using a thinner panel, the midrange will be able to pass through it more easily while the high frequencies that find it reflective would still be bound by the calculations you used to decide on your slots in the first place. So you may be able to increase midrange absorption while keeping it about as reflective as it is now at high frequencies... On the other hand it might be that you have enough holes in the board so that even with its high density, at the midrange frequencies it is as close to acoustically transparent as you are going to get anyway. As you said though you do not have the ability to measure all these things so I would try to be on the safer side.
Forgetting all of that a thinner panel is cheaper too which is nice
Something I would also do is not use that brace to fix it to the wall. I'd try to fix the panel to the foam using a flexible glue and then space the foam from the wall by some other method. This way the panel on the front is free to resonate with the bass and the foam will act as a spring and damp it. The holes would seriously hamper this action but from what I can see in the BAD panels it still has some effect.
Now to your resent and interesting post. I didn't really think about how the ear will locate sounds in relation to the difference in real life and Hi-Fi.
However... I am not sure I agree with your thoughts that in Hi-Fi the anatomical method of localisation has no effect. While the speakers themselves can not 'direct' sound from different angles, the reflections in the room will be coming from different places. So having the frequencies of about 5KHz+ reflecting from the wall behind you will certainly trigger this function and imaging performance will suffer. If you can delay the time it takes for these reflections to arrive at the listener then the detrimental effect will be reduced, hence why scattering at high frequencies would be nice as well.
As I said my intention by using a thinner panel was to absorb more mid frequencies mostly, but maybe shift that cut off up a tiny bit higher. I have not done any calculations on this but my instinct would be that due to the high mass of the 9mm ply panel, even with the holes in it, there will be some effect at around 1KHz-3KHz or so upwards blocking the sound. I would imagine that using a thinner panel, the midrange will be able to pass through it more easily while the high frequencies that find it reflective would still be bound by the calculations you used to decide on your slots in the first place. So you may be able to increase midrange absorption while keeping it about as reflective as it is now at high frequencies... On the other hand it might be that you have enough holes in the board so that even with its high density, at the midrange frequencies it is as close to acoustically transparent as you are going to get anyway. As you said though you do not have the ability to measure all these things so I would try to be on the safer side.
Forgetting all of that a thinner panel is cheaper too which is nice
Something I would also do is not use that brace to fix it to the wall. I'd try to fix the panel to the foam using a flexible glue and then space the foam from the wall by some other method. This way the panel on the front is free to resonate with the bass and the foam will act as a spring and damp it. The holes would seriously hamper this action but from what I can see in the BAD panels it still has some effect.
Now to your resent and interesting post. I didn't really think about how the ear will locate sounds in relation to the difference in real life and Hi-Fi.
However... I am not sure I agree with your thoughts that in Hi-Fi the anatomical method of localisation has no effect. While the speakers themselves can not 'direct' sound from different angles, the reflections in the room will be coming from different places. So having the frequencies of about 5KHz+ reflecting from the wall behind you will certainly trigger this function and imaging performance will suffer. If you can delay the time it takes for these reflections to arrive at the listener then the detrimental effect will be reduced, hence why scattering at high frequencies would be nice as well.
capslock said:
You are right but you may also be surprised by how much effect it can have. The best way is to try it. Get some of the material and paint on it. Hold it over your tweeter and see if you can hear the difference.
ASC use a thin layer of foil on one side of their tube traps. You can turn them one way or the other to have some scattering at high frequencies or not. Obviously even a thin bit of foil makes a noticeable difference.
Hi Tenson,
Maybe it's just a question of semantics... I consider imaging to be the presentation left-to-right and front-to back that the speakers are giving the listener of the original performance. I agree that the anatomical transfer function will contribute to the listening experience, but I would call that an additional enhancement giving a sense of ambience and airiness, and not part of imaging per se.
Re the panel: I was restricted to using the single existing picture hook on my rear wall and so the whole panel hangs like a picture and doesn't require the drilling of any extra holes in the wall. The foam is glued to the rear of the panel and does indeed help damp the natural resonance of the panel at about 40Hz, which is a nice bonus.
Cheers, Ralph
Maybe it's just a question of semantics... I consider imaging to be the presentation left-to-right and front-to back that the speakers are giving the listener of the original performance. I agree that the anatomical transfer function will contribute to the listening experience, but I would call that an additional enhancement giving a sense of ambience and airiness, and not part of imaging per se.
Re the panel: I was restricted to using the single existing picture hook on my rear wall and so the whole panel hangs like a picture and doesn't require the drilling of any extra holes in the wall. The foam is glued to the rear of the panel and does indeed help damp the natural resonance of the panel at about 40Hz, which is a nice bonus.
Cheers, Ralph
ralphs99 said:
Ahh okay. In my experience while you are right that it gives a sense of air and ambience to the sound, if it is not done in the right way (amount of delay between reflections and original, how diffuse etc..) it can smear imaging. The theory behind this is that if the ears pick up multiple similar signals in a short space of time and from different positions it gets a bit confusing to locate the original source.
My own personal preference for rooms where you sit near the back wall is to have the back as absorptive as possible and then use diffusers around the rest of the room to keep it lively and not too dead. However, for an all purpose fix where separate diffusers are not available or positioning is hard I'm sure the panel like this is great.
Have you tried putting one on the wall behind and between the speakers? Generally called an imaging trap.
Excellent
Hi Ralph and Simon,
First off, I must say that you've done an absolutely superb job on the overall look and (by the sounds of it) functionality of your Aeropanel. Certainly the best looking looking DIY acoustic treatment I've seen yet. A particularly like the modern feel.
Anyway, this has pretty much given impetus to something that's been building momentum for a while now. I'm wanting to redo my listening room in a more tasteful and upbeat scheme (its virtually black and depressing at the moment with ugly grey tile treatments). I'm almost certainly going to incorporate something like what you've done with the Aeropanel and the Recording architecture stuff that Simon linked to back on the first page.
What I don't understand is how to deploy the treatments in a suitable manner. Before prempting and assuming, would you guys be willing to help out if I make a quick sketch of the room and show my intended listening position, equipment etc.?
Many thanks
Ant
First off, I must say that you've done an absolutely superb job on the overall look and (by the sounds of it) functionality of your Aeropanel. Certainly the best looking looking DIY acoustic treatment I've seen yet. A particularly like the modern feel.
Anyway, this has pretty much given impetus to something that's been building momentum for a while now. I'm wanting to redo my listening room in a more tasteful and upbeat scheme (its virtually black and depressing at the moment with ugly grey tile treatments). I'm almost certainly going to incorporate something like what you've done with the Aeropanel and the Recording architecture stuff that Simon linked to back on the first page.
What I don't understand is how to deploy the treatments in a suitable manner. Before prempting and assuming, would you guys be willing to help out if I make a quick sketch of the room and show my intended listening position, equipment etc.?
Many thanks
Ant
Sure. I find the actual deployment of treatments in most domestic environments is about the same.
If you are closer to the wall behind you than the front, have quite a lot of absorption on the back wall. On the front put diffusors between the speakers. On the side walls and ceiling put diffusors at the first reflection points. Use quite a large area of diffusion on each first reflection point, say 1m square or more. You can them play around with the amount of absorption on the back wall and diffusion on the front to adjust the liveliness of the room. This is assuming you have a carpet by the way, you may need more diffusion on the ceiling otherwise.
Bass traps in all the corners you can manage. If you use foam types you could put a thin layer of foil over the front to stop it making the room to dead.
If you are closer to the wall behind you than the front, have quite a lot of absorption on the back wall. On the front put diffusors between the speakers. On the side walls and ceiling put diffusors at the first reflection points. Use quite a large area of diffusion on each first reflection point, say 1m square or more. You can them play around with the amount of absorption on the back wall and diffusion on the front to adjust the liveliness of the room. This is assuming you have a carpet by the way, you may need more diffusion on the ceiling otherwise.
Bass traps in all the corners you can manage. If you use foam types you could put a thin layer of foil over the front to stop it making the room to dead.
Tenson said:
Hi Simon and thanks for the undulgence
Here's the room:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
A couple of quick notes; black are subs, grey is speakers, crosshatched is listening area. The room also has a window as depicted by the extra square. And the thin black line is the projection screen.
Rough dimensions are 4m x 2.8m and height is 2.3m(I think).
The system was setup as on the left but I'm wondering if there's any merit to using the length of room as shown to the right. Reflections off the side walls would be strong though. The room is small unfortunately so I'm very limited in placement, these two are literally my only options and both are compromised - using the length of the room has the speakers both placed into corners and the wide radiation pattern of the speakers themselves means strong side wall reflections, bonus is a good distance from listening position to loudspeakers and also the rear wall. Using the width of the room has the speakers away from corners and sidewalls but then you've got a short run from the speakers to the listening position and the rear wall is only a foot and half maybe two away from your head.
Where would the best places for treatments be in each of these and which would you recommend as a starting point and also the one that offers the most potential. I know I'll have to experiment but I've got to plan around the treatments so its kind of a catch 22 situation ie. I need to build the treatments for specific area's but only want to make this a one shot attempt, meaning experimentation will be limited.
I've been playing around with shapes for the diffusors/absorbers and was wonder just what the impact on sound was by these shapes and the frequency and size of them.
I'll be doing is similar thing to Ralph but plan to use 80mm foam instead of 50mm because I'm butchering the existing acoustic foam I've taken down.
These are a couple of ideas for the ceiling treatment which will be suspended, I hope to also incorporate lighting into them in the form of small low voltage spots.
Am I heading in the right direction? What about the rear wall if I'm right up against as in the room layout above?
I'll be doing is similar thing to Ralph but plan to use 80mm foam instead of 50mm because I'm butchering the existing acoustic foam I've taken down.
These are a couple of ideas for the ceiling treatment which will be suspended, I hope to also incorporate lighting into them in the form of small low voltage spots.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Am I heading in the right direction? What about the rear wall if I'm right up against as in the room layout above?
You are going on the right track Ant, and quick work too!
I would first try the layout to the right using the length of the room.
Only, would it not be possible to put the subs flat on the back wall behind the speakers either side of the screen? Corner loading provides a smoother, though boosted response and having the in symmetrically opposing corners will help a great deal to cancel out the odd multiples of the room modes (if driven from the same signal and most bass is mono). DCX to level match and time align etc...
I would go for your DIY treatments on all the points in the room except the side walls where I would suggest buying some proper quadratic residue diffusors from either the likes of RPG or Auralex and building a nice way to hold them and blend the style in with the room. You can see I use a nicely made wooden fame with a fabric cover to hold my diffusors but maybe that would not match your ultra-modern look.
Most of what you need to know for simple treatments like these you probably know from speaker design. If the hole is larger than the 1/4 wavelength of the sound you wish to absorb the wave can not bend round the gaps very easily and it will either hit or miss the hole. If there are a number of smaller holes the wave can bend round the board between the gaps and pass through. Your idea of a mixture of larger and then just a few smaller holes is a nice way to smooth the upper frequency cut-off point. Non-circular holes are hard to approximate as the dimensions are not constant over the entire shape but you can guess it is somewhere in the middle of each dimension.
For the back wall you are not that close so you could get away with the same treatments on it, if you are close you can go just absorptive foam with no wooden cover.
You should also hire a builder to brick up your window, get a light pipe down from the roof of the house
I would first try the layout to the right using the length of the room.
Only, would it not be possible to put the subs flat on the back wall behind the speakers either side of the screen? Corner loading provides a smoother, though boosted response and having the in symmetrically opposing corners will help a great deal to cancel out the odd multiples of the room modes (if driven from the same signal and most bass is mono). DCX to level match and time align etc...
I would go for your DIY treatments on all the points in the room except the side walls where I would suggest buying some proper quadratic residue diffusors from either the likes of RPG or Auralex and building a nice way to hold them and blend the style in with the room. You can see I use a nicely made wooden fame with a fabric cover to hold my diffusors but maybe that would not match your ultra-modern look.
Most of what you need to know for simple treatments like these you probably know from speaker design. If the hole is larger than the 1/4 wavelength of the sound you wish to absorb the wave can not bend round the gaps very easily and it will either hit or miss the hole. If there are a number of smaller holes the wave can bend round the board between the gaps and pass through. Your idea of a mixture of larger and then just a few smaller holes is a nice way to smooth the upper frequency cut-off point. Non-circular holes are hard to approximate as the dimensions are not constant over the entire shape but you can guess it is somewhere in the middle of each dimension.
For the back wall you are not that close so you could get away with the same treatments on it, if you are close you can go just absorptive foam with no wooden cover.
You should also hire a builder to brick up your window, get a light pipe down from the roof of the house
Thanks Simon, looks like I'll have to drag the equipment back in and set it up firing down the length of the room. I haven't tried it with the kit I have now but I have had this orientation before with other kit and found not insignificant improvements from firing across the width of the room, especially imaging.
Looks like I've got a little work to do first.
Next time I'm building waterproof speakers, sticking the amps and electronics in the shed and listening outside - no room problems
Looks like I've got a little work to do first.
Next time I'm building waterproof speakers, sticking the amps and electronics in the shed and listening outside - no room problems
You will get shed problems.
If you find it sounds better the other way then do it that way, the same still applies. I like going for length ways because I use the corners to load the speakers and use EQ to adjust the bass level output and diffusers to know out the side wall reflections.
Without diffusors on the side walls I may well do as you are now.
If you find it sounds better the other way then do it that way, the same still applies. I like going for length ways because I use the corners to load the speakers and use EQ to adjust the bass level output and diffusers to know out the side wall reflections.
Without diffusors on the side walls I may well do as you are now.
Hi Simon,
Yes, I agree, that a poorly executed panel could cause some loss of imaging detail by masking information from the speakers. But because the very high frequency information is already incoherent as recorded, the panel design would have to be able to cause the sound waves to give a coherent reflection in order to cause this masking. A coherent reflection could be caused by a resonant cavity structure. But an acoustic panel would have to be very badly designed for this to occur. ie maybe something like a matrix of soup cans glued together!
Also, thanks for your suggestion of a panel between the speakers, I will give it a try!
Cheers, Ralph
Yes, I agree, that a poorly executed panel could cause some loss of imaging detail by masking information from the speakers. But because the very high frequency information is already incoherent as recorded, the panel design would have to be able to cause the sound waves to give a coherent reflection in order to cause this masking. A coherent reflection could be caused by a resonant cavity structure. But an acoustic panel would have to be very badly designed for this to occur. ie maybe something like a matrix of soup cans glued together!
Also, thanks for your suggestion of a panel between the speakers, I will give it a try!
Cheers, Ralph
Hi Shin,
Thanks for the compliments. It's good to hear you're interested in the thread. Of course I would be happy to assist if I can. You've given a great deal to the forum over the short period that I've been involved. In fact I often wonder where you find the time. I'm amazed at the amount of work you manage to do!
Like eveyone else, you have two fundamental acoustic problems: Firstly speaker placement, and secondly the acoustic properties of the room. The first problem has been carefully researched by Floyd Toole at Harman. I can't overstate the value of his work. He really has made speaker placement a science. http://www.harmaninternational.com/about_harman/technology_leadership.aspx Click on white papers when you get there.
I've also put togther a brief introduction to acoustics in listening rooms on my web page that might be of interest. http://www.aeronet.com.au/Acoustics.htm
From looking at your proposed plans of your listening room, I can see the problem you have! Like you, I am concerned by the placement of both main speakers in the front corners of the room in the second diagram. The reflections from the side walls will be very strong. I suspect that diffusors will not be enough to fix this problem and you may need to resort to absorbers instead.
The second option of having the speakers along the long wall should be much better in this regard and give you a view out the window. Unfortunately symmetry will be lost, and you then have a problem with the reflection from the rear wall, and the projection screen will block the window when in use.
If you go with the first option, I think you will need to bring the speakers out from the corners as much as possible, to the edge of the window and to the wall dog-leg if feasible. To maintian a roughly equilateral triangle beween speakers and listener, the couch will need to be pushed back a little. But you will still have a good amount of air to the rear wall.
Your problem may then be more aesthetic. It might look a bit strange having the projection screen so far back from the speakers. Maybe you could install false rear wall about a metre or so from the true wall? The room would probably look better balanced and you could place hidden bass traps behind it.
With either layout the subs should ideally be placed along the adjacent walls to the speakers, mid way along if possible. (The Toole papers explain why)
As far as acoustic treatment goes:
In general, I prefer to minimse the amount of treatment and only install what I feel is really necessary. My listening room is always the lounge room and I like to keep it visually friendly. Too many diffusors and absorbers can make the room look like a recording studio!
For the first layout I would try broad-band absorbers behind the listening postion and between the right-hand speaker and the wall. I think that diffusors, as Tenson has already suggested, might be preferrable; however, in my admittedly limited experience with diffusors, I've found that they need some space to work properly. In this case with the speakers up against the walls absorbers might be a better choice. Bass traps are nice to have, but with the optimum sub layout as suggested above, the bass in the room will be very even. Bass traps will help the low frequency reverberation time but you probably won't need them to address specific resonances. Additional diffusors in the room at reflection points are also nice to have if you have the budget.
For the second layout: Broad-band absorbers between each speaker and the side wall and a diffusor along the rear wall are probably the minimum required.
But Simon seems to have a wider experience with treatments in a variety of rooms, so maybe his recommendations are better. Experience like that can't be bought!
Cheers, Ralph
Thanks for the compliments. It's good to hear you're interested in the thread. Of course I would be happy to assist if I can. You've given a great deal to the forum over the short period that I've been involved. In fact I often wonder where you find the time. I'm amazed at the amount of work you manage to do!
Like eveyone else, you have two fundamental acoustic problems: Firstly speaker placement, and secondly the acoustic properties of the room. The first problem has been carefully researched by Floyd Toole at Harman. I can't overstate the value of his work. He really has made speaker placement a science. http://www.harmaninternational.com/about_harman/technology_leadership.aspx Click on white papers when you get there.
I've also put togther a brief introduction to acoustics in listening rooms on my web page that might be of interest. http://www.aeronet.com.au/Acoustics.htm
From looking at your proposed plans of your listening room, I can see the problem you have! Like you, I am concerned by the placement of both main speakers in the front corners of the room in the second diagram. The reflections from the side walls will be very strong. I suspect that diffusors will not be enough to fix this problem and you may need to resort to absorbers instead.
The second option of having the speakers along the long wall should be much better in this regard and give you a view out the window. Unfortunately symmetry will be lost, and you then have a problem with the reflection from the rear wall, and the projection screen will block the window when in use.
If you go with the first option, I think you will need to bring the speakers out from the corners as much as possible, to the edge of the window and to the wall dog-leg if feasible. To maintian a roughly equilateral triangle beween speakers and listener, the couch will need to be pushed back a little. But you will still have a good amount of air to the rear wall.
Your problem may then be more aesthetic. It might look a bit strange having the projection screen so far back from the speakers. Maybe you could install false rear wall about a metre or so from the true wall? The room would probably look better balanced and you could place hidden bass traps behind it.
With either layout the subs should ideally be placed along the adjacent walls to the speakers, mid way along if possible. (The Toole papers explain why)
As far as acoustic treatment goes:
In general, I prefer to minimse the amount of treatment and only install what I feel is really necessary. My listening room is always the lounge room and I like to keep it visually friendly. Too many diffusors and absorbers can make the room look like a recording studio!
For the first layout I would try broad-band absorbers behind the listening postion and between the right-hand speaker and the wall. I think that diffusors, as Tenson has already suggested, might be preferrable; however, in my admittedly limited experience with diffusors, I've found that they need some space to work properly. In this case with the speakers up against the walls absorbers might be a better choice. Bass traps are nice to have, but with the optimum sub layout as suggested above, the bass in the room will be very even. Bass traps will help the low frequency reverberation time but you probably won't need them to address specific resonances. Additional diffusors in the room at reflection points are also nice to have if you have the budget.
For the second layout: Broad-band absorbers between each speaker and the side wall and a diffusor along the rear wall are probably the minimum required.
But Simon seems to have a wider experience with treatments in a variety of rooms, so maybe his recommendations are better. Experience like that can't be bought!
Cheers, Ralph
Thanks for the insights Ralph.
I'm going to try out the positions described to see which appears to be the best starting point. I think this is most sensible since I'll be locked into that scheme once the room and treatments are in place.
No doubt I'll be back in the near future with more questions regarding specifics on treatments once I've surmounted the problem I'm facing at the moment.
I'm going to try out the positions described to see which appears to be the best starting point. I think this is most sensible since I'll be locked into that scheme once the room and treatments are in place.
No doubt I'll be back in the near future with more questions regarding specifics on treatments once I've surmounted the problem I'm facing at the moment.
ralphs99 said:
Ralph,
What exactly do you mean by coherent? Phase accurate to the original? Similar frequency response?
It seems to me that any sound which is similar to the direct sound arriving at the listener in a very short space of time will cause 'smearing' of details, including imaging.
Even if the sound is not similar, having two sounds playing at the same time makes it harder to hear just one of them. Locating two sound sources that happen at an identical time is harder than you might think! I admit I don't know how that would work out when each sound uses a different mechanism for location though!
Tenson said:
I agree that even miniscule time arrival differences are completely audible, as an example that I have plenty of practical experience with; I used to use the PC XO setup for adding delays between drivers and each loudspeaker themselves. I was amazed at how even fractions of a millisecond (samples in this case) were readily apparent and often substantial. Just adding a 1/10th of a ms to a driver in relation to the other caused shifts in imaging and particularly depth of imaging. Larger delays started to mask details and add an ugly phasey nature to the sound.
ShinOBIWAN said:
I think you have the right idea, you want to start with the best and then build on that.
Having said that, you need to know what you can and can't do. For example when you have EQ you know you can place the subs in the corners and still get them to not have a stupidly boosted bass. From my own experience I have found that if you have access to good diffusors, you can place the speakers right up against the side walls and still have seamless imaging. A QRD or a 3D design will just knock the reflection right out.
Ralph is right about diffusors needing space though. But it is mainly important for there to be space between them and you, not the source of the sound. The diffused sound needs space to integrate. 2m from you to the diffusors should be perfectly good.
Tenson said:
My aim is to completely circumvent DRC/EQ on the mains altogether hopefully or at least limit it to below 300-400hz and certainly no higher. With my last setup I had strongish DRC/EQ on the mains upto around 1Khz with nothing above that.
Since I'm starting with a clean slate, iths pretty much anything goes within reason. One thing I'm absolutely keen to avoid is large bass traps ie. Aurlx Venus size traps. I know this greatly limits my low end control but as I've said, I'm fully prepared to use EQ below 300hz(and definitely for the subs(20hz-50hz)). What I want the treatments to do is control the stuff above 300hz to 4khz(where my room has problems) in a natural fashion ie. I don't want an extremely 'dead' room as I had before from 1Khz up so as to allow for absolutely zero EQ in this important region.
My room, treatments and setup before really majored on imaging and detail but the size of the soundstage was smallish in comparison to the best I've heard - no doubt because of the OT treatments and very dead in the mid and upper ranges. I want to ideally keep the strong imaging but flesh out the size of the soundstage with the next attempt.
Probably asking a lot here but I think its achieveable with help from you and Ralph as well as considered setup and very minimal use of EQ this time around.
You can EQ the low end as you say, but low end decay rate will still not change, and in fact often gets a bit worse with only EQ. You have some bass traps at the moment don't you, so I'd keep those at least.
Some of those traps like Ralph made should help in the lower midrange (300Hz-1KHz) as they are nice and deep off the wall.
Knowing what you want to achieve I would suggest using just absorption on the back wall, nice and thick and spaced from the wall to get a well controlled lower midrange (300Hz-1KHz) then cough up the money and get yourself some SkyLine diffusors (not the low profile ones) from RPG for the side walls, ceiling and wall behind the speakers. That will improve the imaging and widen the soundstage the best you can do. If you don't like the look of them I'm sure you can hide them in some way.
Too many panels which are just part absorptive and part reflective like the Aero may make it too dead in the midrange and then the high frequencies will still be simply reflected and cause damage to the imaging/soundstage. No doubt these will improve things but they won't do the best possible, if that’s what you want.
You have lots to experiment with
Some of those traps like Ralph made should help in the lower midrange (300Hz-1KHz) as they are nice and deep off the wall.
Knowing what you want to achieve I would suggest using just absorption on the back wall, nice and thick and spaced from the wall to get a well controlled lower midrange (300Hz-1KHz) then cough up the money and get yourself some SkyLine diffusors (not the low profile ones) from RPG for the side walls, ceiling and wall behind the speakers. That will improve the imaging and widen the soundstage the best you can do. If you don't like the look of them I'm sure you can hide them in some way.
Too many panels which are just part absorptive and part reflective like the Aero may make it too dead in the midrange and then the high frequencies will still be simply reflected and cause damage to the imaging/soundstage. No doubt these will improve things but they won't do the best possible, if that’s what you want.
You have lots to experiment with
ShinOBIWAN,
If you're starting from scratch why ignore the bass spectrum? EQ'g doesn't fix the problem it only masks it by making response flat, a flat mud puddle instead of one with tire ruts. The structure of my room is such that about 50% of my walls and 100% of the ceiling consists of variously tuned panel bass traps, no big ugly bass traps but a nice clean bottom end.
If you're starting from scratch why ignore the bass spectrum? EQ'g doesn't fix the problem it only masks it by making response flat, a flat mud puddle instead of one with tire ruts. The structure of my room is such that about 50% of my walls and 100% of the ceiling consists of variously tuned panel bass traps, no big ugly bass traps but a nice clean bottom end.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.