That is why for many home use cases broadband panels are a good choice as they can even out the overall room decay taming the bass build up without overdamping the high frequencies.
Some graphs and an even decay result from broadband panels in this link
https://www.acousticsinsider.com/best-insulation-material-diy-acoustic-absorbers/
https://www.acousticsinsider.com/broadband-bass-traps-what-about-frequencies-you-dont-want-to-fix/
The point I was trying to make was that when absorbing specular / first reflection points it is desirable to absorb as much of the frequency range as possible instead of using a thin panel that only affects the higher frequencies and acts as a filter.
Toole's Second Edition book highlights this on pages 483 and 484.
There is nothing statistically irrelevant about early reflections and there is no specific line in the sand at a particular time for all sounds. There is lot that goes on with the addition or removal of early reflections, their timing level and direction. It is quite a complicated topic and it touches on both spatial and timbral effects.
This graph from Toole could help to graphically show some of the above.
Soren Bech has done a lot of studies on how reflections affect timbre they are good to read here is one
https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/4415806/Bech.pdf
It depends. The clap test is more interesting in a room in which you record/track rather than for playback in my view. Even if close to loudspeaker location you won't mimic the directivity behavior of the loudspeaker playing.
And that won't give you hint about first reflection.
To identify the zone/area that could be treated there is the mirror method: you seat at listening spot and ask an assistant to slowly move a mirror along the side walls. As long as the loudspeaker enclosure is visible the area should be treated. Same apply to ceiling and front wall.
I don't know. I've heard very good control rooms, some which were so-so, others absolutely awful.
As Classical fan stated there is different approach to this field, which gives different rendering too.
I think it really is a preference thing too ( i could list what i liked the most but in no way that would be a definitive answer).
Puppet, could you define your needs for home listening? I don't find them to be different in both environnements for myself.
A demonstration of how different rooms can be.
My diy-speakers at home and at an audio show room where I had to tame down bass almost 10dB to reach similar response and tonality. Still, reverb in bass was huge! However my speakers' sound was voted "best in show". This happened in May 2015 and AINOs had all LR4 xo slopes. 360 deg normalized horizontal directivity is in my avatar, cardioid around 150Hz and dipole above it. No damping behind the speakers!
We can see that most reflected energy happens below 500Hz, and worst at below 100hz (modes).
My diy-speakers at home and at an audio show room where I had to tame down bass almost 10dB to reach similar response and tonality. Still, reverb in bass was huge! However my speakers' sound was voted "best in show". This happened in May 2015 and AINOs had all LR4 xo slopes. 360 deg normalized horizontal directivity is in my avatar, cardioid around 150Hz and dipole above it. No damping behind the speakers!
We can see that most reflected energy happens below 500Hz, and worst at below 100hz (modes).
Last edited:
"Is Room Correction Always Really Necessary? "
no it is not, for those who do not care how music sounds in their homes do not need any such correction, but as soon we really start to listen we will discover how badly a poor room can sound, after that there is really no other way then to try to fix the problem(s)
no it is not, for those who do not care how music sounds in their homes do not need any such correction, but as soon we really start to listen we will discover how badly a poor room can sound, after that there is really no other way then to try to fix the problem(s)
For me ... I tend to prefer a more "lively" room for listening. Probably because my tastes in music tend to be live performances of just about any genre. I don't tend to listen to any individual element within the recording, unless that's called for, rather the whole. That "lively" type of room seems to place performers within the space I'm in. Some recordings of smaller venues provide a good sense of the musicians being in the room. Other recordings give me a sense of being at the venue itself .. in the crowd. It's not a noisy, "confused" result ... it's just bigger.
I don't get that sense when listening in a smaller more absorbent room. One that I'd associate with a more analytical approach to listening. One that I'd like to "mix" in, if that was my thing. I can appreciate that some would prefer listening in that sort of room .. a strict audiophile perhaps. A space where individual elements of a recording can be easily broken down from the whole.
Last edited:
Today, all the audio equipments are linear enough, room is not. It is not necessary, it is mandatory.
Not necessarily in all cases. In a large room set up for far field listening some room treatment is likely to be needed. But in a small room with near field listening room treatments probably won't make much difference, if any.
That is the point I have been trying to make. Contrary to some posts here, room treatments are not always mandatory. It depends on the specific room set up, the type of music being played, and the listener as well.
I've got inverse experience of what you state Classicfan, nearfield doesn't make room disapear: it change the balance between direct sound and reflected sound but still you'll listen to your room.
This ratio is known as 'critical distance' in acoustic field. As it is room size (as well as loudspeaker directivity and absorbtion) related you might observe that bigger room have longer than small ones.
In typical domestic european room in can be as low as 50cm...
For a control room the listening point is located at this distance as it give a 50% ratio of direct sound and diffuse field.
That makes bigger room less troublesome on some area ( others can have specific issues that you won't encounter with small rooms) and smaller ones much more troublesome on others...
This ratio is known as 'critical distance' in acoustic field. As it is room size (as well as loudspeaker directivity and absorbtion) related you might observe that bigger room have longer than small ones.
In typical domestic european room in can be as low as 50cm...
For a control room the listening point is located at this distance as it give a 50% ratio of direct sound and diffuse field.
That makes bigger room less troublesome on some area ( others can have specific issues that you won't encounter with small rooms) and smaller ones much more troublesome on others...
I don't think that there is any argument about some amount of reflected sound still being heard even with near field listening. But the question is whether it is enough to really matter. Enough to go through all sorts of acoustical treatments, front walls, side walls, absorption, reflection, try this, try that, to ever make much of a difference in a near field situation.
The irony in your statement is i know you never tryed.
Because you imply there is few change to be expected. This is just the most significant place to have change happening.
I won't try to convince you as you seems to be biased toward this is placebo.
That said if curiosity hitch you this is the most simple and cheap try you'll ever do in diy:
some rolls/sheets of mineral wool or UltraTouch denim/ isolant Metisse ( that you could reuse afterward if it doesn't suit you in audio treatment to improve your thermal or sound(!) Insulation, some piece of used wood to make a frame, some staples,... 1h work. Done. Dirty, cheap well enough to try. And who cares? It's just for some hours... if not there is answers to make very nice things ( to my preference) as you can now print whatever suit you on fabric.
I suggest you to try the 'mirror method'. Only that. And compare ( frame can be thoughts to be hanged/removed fast enough to make comparisons... if you can think of a way to vary an airgap too ( from against wall up to 20cm, some kind of spacer) you could try too.
Because you imply there is few change to be expected. This is just the most significant place to have change happening.
I won't try to convince you as you seems to be biased toward this is placebo.
That said if curiosity hitch you this is the most simple and cheap try you'll ever do in diy:
some rolls/sheets of mineral wool or UltraTouch denim/ isolant Metisse ( that you could reuse afterward if it doesn't suit you in audio treatment to improve your thermal or sound(!) Insulation, some piece of used wood to make a frame, some staples,... 1h work. Done. Dirty, cheap well enough to try. And who cares? It's just for some hours... if not there is answers to make very nice things ( to my preference) as you can now print whatever suit you on fabric.
I suggest you to try the 'mirror method'. Only that. And compare ( frame can be thoughts to be hanged/removed fast enough to make comparisons... if you can think of a way to vary an airgap too ( from against wall up to 20cm, some kind of spacer) you could try too.
Last edited:
That's true. I have never tried. Because based on what I have read from Toole and from others here, I do not expect much of a change at all. Particularly with near field listening.
But even if there is a change, why would I expect it to be better than what I have now. I am not aware of any smearing or other types of distortion. In fact, I thoroughly enjoy exactly what I have right now.
And that's my objection to the posts here that declare regardless of anything else, regardless of whether you are completely pleased with what you have now, you absolutely must use room treatments. No exceptions. None. Everybody in every situation must do room treatments. There is no such thing as being totally satisfied without them. Sorry, but I'm just not buying that line.
If you are happy with what you got then why bother?
I really mean it.
If you enjoy what you have so be it.
If another approach to your own doesn't fit your view, preferences, whatever ... then fine. This is what makes the world enjoyable to me: diversity.
That said i learned a lot studying approach i won't take for many reasons, rational or irational but i studyied them and if possible without preconception ( not easy we are all biased one way or another).
There is only things to be gained in my view.
I really mean it.
If you enjoy what you have so be it.
If another approach to your own doesn't fit your view, preferences, whatever ... then fine. This is what makes the world enjoyable to me: diversity.
That said i learned a lot studying approach i won't take for many reasons, rational or irational but i studyied them and if possible without preconception ( not easy we are all biased one way or another).
There is only things to be gained in my view.
No.. I agree with you here. You can be quite happy if you walk into an ordinary room without changing it, but you design the speakers to fit. If I was given a choice between the two, I'd choose this.
Exactly the point that I have been trying to make. Get everything else right to begin with and room treatments might not make much of a difference, if any at all.
But there are some here who insist that room treatments are always required regardless of how well you do everything else. They claim that room treatments are mandatory. No exceptions allowed.
Forget the fact that you chose exactly the right kind of speakers with the best dispersion characteristics for your situation. Forget the fact that you optimized the speaker and listening positions and have nailed in an exceptional stereo sound stage and imaging. Forget all of that, because without room treatments you can't possibly have done all of it and therefore cannot fully enjoy the music.
Well said. I just deleted my intended post as it parrots what you've just said. Once the fundamentals are in place, the rest is questionable. Unless of course you're set up in a concrete cubical. A typical listening environment is going to take you 80% of the way there. That's been my experience over the past 40 years.
Having said that, I've run across people who thought the concrete cubical they set up in their basement was the best ever!
Having said that, I've run across people who thought the concrete cubical they set up in their basement was the best ever!
I wonder what you read that made you think there would not be much of a change.
It seems as strange to me to say that room treatments are pointless as it does to say they are mandatory.
In the very first post I quoted from Toole that leaving the walls reflective, i.e., no room treatments, was the best for classical music and jazz. There are other places as I recall where he is not a big supporter of room treatments, either. I would have to look for them to give you specific references.
Just to be clear I have not been saying that room treatments are always pointless. There are some situations in which I'm sure they can be beneficial.
What I am saying is that they are not always needed. My criticism is of other people who have declared that they are always needed and therefore mandatory. Look back to Post #47 to see an example of what I'm talking about.
Last edited: