[GDeering]

I'm laying 2in. 703 (foil backed) in the corners and at first reflection, the panels against the walls had 2in spacers so they were not leaning.  At first I was impressed by the new detail and musicalness, but it was not long before I realized that a there was a great loss of color/tone to the music. I went back and forth to confirm, and I have to say I'm surprised.

I bought a box of 703 and a box of 705 to make Ethan's simple 4 inch traps, but I am surprised at the result of the casual laying out.  So is this a beginner thing not to do?  I understand that the 2 inch is affecting the midrange absorption, but why would it be different for 4 inch, is it possible to deaden the room so easily?


Gregg

[JLM]

My 8ft x 13ft x 21ft drywalled basement room with nearfield setup is per Cardias recommendatios.  My 8" single driver speakers "beam" high frequencies.  So this arrangement should pretty well take the room out of the equation.  So I wasn't suprised that the differences using six GIK 244 panels (4" rigid w/spacers) at front corners and front/side wall first reflection points were rather subtle.  Bass boomed a bit less (speakers rated in room down to 30 Hz) and soundstage got a somewhat wider/deeper.

What is your room, setup, and speakers like?  Are there large openings/windows?  Are the speakers omni-directional or dipoles?

What were you trying to gain from using absorptive treatments?

Please define further what you mean by musicalness and color/tone.  It can be very hard to convey what is heard, but I'm not relating to these terms, and having a hard time trying to understand how absorption panels could affect anything like what you're describing.

[Glenn K]

I'm laying 2in. 703 (foil backed) in the corners and at first reflection, the panels against the walls had 2in spacers so they were not leaning.  At first I was impressed by the new detail and musicalness, but it was not long before I realized that a there was a great loss of color/tone to the music. I went back and forth to confirm, and I have to say I'm surprised.

I bought a box of 703 and a box of 705 to make Ethan's simple 4 inch traps, but I am surprised at the result of the casual laying out.  So is this a beginner thing not to do?  I understand that the 2 inch is affecting the midrange absorption, but why would it be different for 4 inch, is it possible to deaden the room so easily?


Gregg

Gregg,
A couple things I want to point out to you.
2" panels  for the early reflections (flat on the wall) should not have the FRK (foil) on them, as you really want to absorb as much of the high end as possible. For the corners you want to use 4" with the foil facing the room. This will help to reflect some of the highs (so the room does not go dead) and will act as a membrane to absorb more low end.
Attached is a layout you may want to look over. It will help you with set up of your setting spot and also acoustics.



Glenn

[95bcwh]

Glenn, you're revealing too much of your "audio secret" again..

Gregg,
A couple things I want to point out to you.
2" panels  for the early reflections (flat on the wall) should not have the FRK (foil) on them, as you really want to absorb as much of the high end as possible. For the corners you want to use 4" with the foil facing the room. This will help to reflect some of the highs (so the room does not go dead) and will act as a membrane to absorb more low end.
Attached is a layout you may want to look over. It will help you with set up of your setting spot and also acoustics.



Glenn

[Glenn K]

Glenn, you're revealing too much of your "audio secret" again..

Gregg,
A couple things I want to point out to you.
2" panels  for the early reflections (flat on the wall) should not have the FRK (foil) on them, as you really want to absorb as much of the high end as possible. For the corners you want to use 4" with the foil facing the room. This will help to reflect some of the highs (so the room does not go dead) and will act as a membrane to absorb more low end.
Attached is a layout you may want to look over. It will help you with set up of your setting spot and also acoustics.



Glenn

Next secret!!!!!!!!!!!!!  (FYI the model is mine so she is not for sale. Infact she owns half of GIK aa)

[Ethan Winer]

FYI the model is mine so she is not for sale. Infact she owns half of GIK)

Ines is a beauty all right. I'll start the bidding at $1,000.

And how did a mug like you get such a classy lady?

[Ethan Winer]

it was not long before I realized that a there was a great loss of color/tone to the music.

You're there and I'm not, so i can only guess. But have a few thoughts:

Reflection panels must not be faced with paper or foil. You need 100 percent absorption at mid and high frequencies.

A well-treated room can be considered an acquired taste. There are two philosophies about this. One says the room should be a part of the total ambience, and the other says the room should contribute as little as possible. I am firmly in the second camp. Otherwise, everything sounds the same, because the room adds its own color masking all the hard work the recording and mixing engineers put into creating the "environment" they intended. When you get rid of the room's ambience - especially the early reflections which cause the most damage - then you can truly hear the recording as intended.

It's also a mistake (in my opinion) to believe the room adds a necessary or useful liveness. In my well-treated living room I hear more embedded reverb and ambience, not less. The sound is richer, fuller, and of course much cleaner when the room tone is removed by absorption. Likewise for the bass.

I went through this recently with a customer who had borrowed some absorbers from a friend and tried them at the first reflection points. He said he hated the effect because it "Completely robbed the music of its natural ambience." It's difficult to argue with a paying customer, or tell them they're wrong. But in my opinion, once you get used and learn to appreciate the improvement, there's no going back.

--Ethan

[95bcwh]

Ethan you have hit the nail on the head!

Yes, there are indeed such people in this business who dislike room treatment because they are so accustom to room "echo".

And sadly, that view is shared by quite a number of "high-end audio" dealers in my area.

I went through this recently with a customer who had borrowed some absorbers from a friend and tried them at the first reflection points. He said he hated the effect because it "Completely robbed the music of its natural ambience." It's difficult to argue with a paying customer, or tell them they're wrong. But in my opinion, once you get used and learn to appreciate the improvement, there's no going back.

--Ethan

[woodsyi]

4 big things for me in the acoustic treatment of my room. 

1) Big thick traps on corners to tame deep bass.
2) mid/high absorption/diffusion at the early reflection points.
3) Big wide diffuser at the back (behind listening position)wall -- this really establishes a holographic sound stage. 
4) absorption  of all frequencies in the front (behind the speakers) wall.

They make the biggest difference in this respective order. 

Basically, it's what Glenn pictures on his diagram.   

[mfsoa]

Yeah, I'm totally with Ethan here too.
I guess there's some point where there is too much absorption (I've never listened in an anechoic chamber) but I haven't found it.

Every step I've made treatment-wise has resulted in an improvement in image focus and detail retrieval. Maybe that's just where my individual priorities lie - The spooky trick we are able to play on our brain, where you can stare down a speaker in broad daylight and honestly feel that it is not producing any sound at all (happens all the time to non-audiophiles who come into my room with the panels all around, and truly can't tell what "devices" are making the noise) is very important to me.

How many people's rooms are filled with megabuck equipment without any treatment. Jeez, you just know that'll sound like crap after experiencing what a well-treated room sounds like. It just HAS to when that much of what hits your ears is out-of-phase distortion that was not on the original source.

My wife watches all these designer shows on HGTV - Walls of glass, slate floors - You can literally hear the reflections through the mics that the people are wearing. Hey it may look cool and sleek, but I find (now) these spaces to be almost intolerable to be in. I feel literally assaulted by the reflections. By ignoring the sound of a space, these designers are failing at thier job. And not from a music point of view, but speech and everyday household noises are annoying to the point of distraction. This leads to a sense of stress that I feel many people just don't realize they are feeling, and don't know how easy it is to remove!! I was in a restaurant the other day and had to strain w/ all my attention to understand what the 3 others at the table were saying, the place was so live. I look around and know, just KNOW, that for $500 in sound absorption the entire feeling of the place would be totally transformed for the better. But nooooo, can't have a panel up in my room, my wife'll kill me. Sheesh, give up already. If you crave a model train set but have only a 1 foot square table to put it on, uhhh, your craving the wrong thing and should move on.

Sorry for the militant audiophile rant - I guess my point is that once your ears are recalibrated to a low-reverd space there is no going back, and you (I at least) can't help but notice the assault that the ears take when they are in a too-live space.

OK, deep cleansing breath.... Think calm thoughts..... OK, I'm better now.

-Mike

[Daygloworange]

A well-treated room can be considered an acquired taste. There are two philosophies about this. One says the room should be a part of the total ambience, and the other says the room should contribute as little as possible. I am firmly in the second camp. Otherwise, everything sounds the same, because the room adds its own color masking all the hard work the recording and mixing engineers put into creating the "environment" they intended. When you get rid of the room's ambience - especially the early reflections which cause the most damage - then you can truly hear the recording as intended.

It's also a mistake (in my opinion) to believe the room adds a necessary or useful liveness. In my well-treated living room I hear more embedded reverb and ambience, not less. The sound is richer, fuller, and of course much cleaner when the room tone is removed by absorption. Likewise for the bass.

I went through this recently with a customer who had borrowed some absorbers from a friend and tried them at the first reflection points. He said he hated the effect because it "Completely robbed the music of its natural ambience." It's difficult to argue with a paying customer, or tell them they're wrong.

I totally agree with Ethan's views. I'm firmly in the second camp as well.

But in my opinion, once you get used and learn to appreciate the improvement, there's no going back.

There is no going back. Totally agree there as well. I've often found that the differences in improvements , be it room acoustics, or system related, are often more noticeable when they've been listened to for a while, then suddenly removed. Introducing detrimental differences (into an equation) seems to be more impactful, while positive differences often seem to be incremental in regards to human perception.

In my well-treated living room I hear more embedded reverb and ambience, not less. The sound is richer, fuller, and of course much cleaner when the room tone is removed by absorption. Likewise for the bass.

I highlighted this again, because these are the important cues which give the instruments their "tone", be it a violin, or a drum kit. For those that have heard instruments recorded in ambience "dead" rooms without room gain impacting for low frequencies, and early reflections for mid-range coloration, know exactly how lifeless instruments can sound.

But once an instrument has been recorded and processed either with ambient miking techniques, or through digital reverbs and such, you do not want to add yet another ambience (source of early and late reflections and low frequency room gain) between the playback system and your ears. You are just obscurring the playback of the recording.

mfsoa, nice post.

By ignoring the sound of a space, these designers are failing at thier job. And not from a music point of view, but speech and everyday household noises are annoying to the point of distraction. This leads to a sense of stress that I feel many people just don't realize they are feeling,

It is a very real contributor to peoples' everyday stress levels. After having spent years, and literally thousands of hours in behind mixers in studio control rooms with room treatments, it's made me become very aware of room acoustics, and particularly sensitive to bad room acoustics.

Yes, it's too bad it's not something designers are even aware of, much less pay any attention to.

I've been telling people for a long time who ask me for advice, that if they've got a thousand dollars to invest in "upgrading" their system, to treat the room first.

The room "is" part of the system.

Cheers

[bpape]

I couldn't agree more - especially with:

- The room is part of the system

- Introducing detrimental changes being more impactful.  It's the old saying " you don't know how good you had it until it's gone".  That's oh so true in audio reproduction.

Bryan

[klh]

Beginner advice... if you're building your own traps... cover your skin, wear gloves, wear a breathing mask and goggles! Also, be sure to assemble them in a garage or outside.

[Daygloworange]

But now that you have room treatments, how does your system sound now Krister?

Cheers

[JLM]

Wanting the room to flavor the sound is akin to wanting the speakers panels to flavor the sound.  Because of proper proportions, nearfield setup, moderate spls, and "beaming" high frequencies my room was pretty much "out of the equation" before adding panels.  (Just the way I intended.)

[klh]

But now that you have room treatments, how does your system sound now Krister?

Cheers

Damn good . My wife even noticed the difference . That should tell you something .

[Glenn K]

FYI the model is mine so she is not for sale. Infact she owns half of GIK)

Ines is a beauty all right. I'll start the bidding at $1,000.

And how did a mug like you get such a classy lady?

I do a lot of this  .  GOD MY KNEES HURT!

Glenn

[bpape]

What you've just experienced is what can happen when one uses a BALANCED absorbtion scheme.  A bunch of 1 and 2" is only going to deal with mids and highs and leaves the bottom with still too much decay time.  Going to 4" broadens it's reach and helps 'unmask' some of the details while keeping things in balance.

Bryan