Well, as usual, I'm the stick-in-the-mud relative to some issue - this time it has to do with the sonic benefits of Room Treatments. On two different occasions over the past year, I've put up a fairly comprehensive array of Room Treatments in my listening room:
> absorption panels at first reflection points on front wall (behind speakers) and on side walls
> 3 bass traps in each front corner (12 total)
The first occasion, a friend brought over his DIY work, which was based upon a gentlman named Jon Risch (I think that how it's spelled). A few months later, my brother brought over some Auralex products. Notice I was not in the position to A/B these products against each other - only "treated room" vs "untreated room".
In both cases, there were considerable "changes" to the sound, and the first impression was "wow, that's really great!!". But that's the way it usually goes, as it's easy to fall into the trap of "any change is perceived as an improvement". With additional time, it became apparent to me that within this "wall of change", the majority was not for the better.
There are four criteria that play into this (unusual) result:
1) Room geometry
2) Furniture/carpet/etc
3) Specific audio gear that comprises the system
4) Preferences/goals of owner
For example, my friend who built the Risch-design products pretty much agreed with my analysis of the pros/cons of these products in my room. However, my brother disagreed. We heard the same changes. But he felt the improvements his Auralex stuff brought far outweighed any drawbacks. Same room, same gear - two different "preferences".
Kevin
