[95bcwh]

All,
 
  First, some background info:-

  A friend of mine (Mr. Copper from Macau) was truely inspired by this great room of Mr. Mike Lavigne:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9614410&&#post9614410

  Of which he also described its construction in great details here:
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue16/lavigneroom.htm

  Now, Mr. Copper owns a piece of land so big that he can build a dedicated 2-channel audio room of any size/shape, he has done some readings himself and decided to build a room based on the Golden Ratio of 11ft tall x 17.6 wide x 28.6 long.

  He doesn't feel right copying entirely the design from Mike Lavigne so he's asking me if I know any friends in the US that can give him some alternative ideas.

  Hence allow me to post one question here:

 If you now have the resources to build your dreamed 2-channel room, what size/shape of room will you build, and what kind of treatment (absorption/diffusor) will you apply to the front wall, rear wall, side wall and ceiling?

  Appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.

  Barry
  Houston, TX

 
 

     

[Lkdog]

If I had unlimited funds to do what you are saying, I would hire Ethan Winer from the Rives company to consult.
Take a look over at the forum. My guess is you already have.

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/rives/bbs.html

[zybar]

If I had unlimited funds to do what you are saying, I would hire Ethan Winer from the Rives company to consult.
Take a look over at the forum. My guess is you already have.

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/rives/bbs.html

Ethan doesn't work for Reeves, he has his own company - RealTraps (www.realtraps.com).

I do think that combining the talents of Rives and Ethan would produce some great sounding results.

George

[bpape]

Rives definitly has their own way of doing things - and it would be completely different than Ethan.  Rives rooms are VERY live and from the designs of theirs I've seen plans for, they use very little bass control.  To me, broadband bass control is a key element in pretty much any room design.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for diffusion and some livliness if the room will support it correctly - especially in a 2 channel room.  But, it needs to be combined with some broadband absorbtion to bring decay times in line instead of just scattering them through space and time domains.

Bryan

[rollo]

Barry,

            Hire a consultant. Seek out contractors with experience in building such a room. Professionals are a must when an expenditure of this nature is considered.
             Eathan is one of the best around, I would speak to him and if you are comfortable with his style. If you are then by all means retain him.
              Just do not discuss cable burn in.

 rollo

[95bcwh]

Rives rooms are VERY live and from the designs of theirs I've seen plans for, they use very little bass control.  To me, broadband bass control is a key element in pretty much any room design. 

From the look of Mike Levigne's room, the design seems to treat mid/high frequency with the diffusor at 1st reflection point on the side wall. I think he has sufficient bass-trap built into the room. I remember reading an article from RPG which started that diffusors should be placed at least 10 ft from the listener, if that's the case, shouldn't a acoustically room be at least 20ft wide?

One other question that interests me is that what's the sonic difference between a diffusor offered by Ethan:


vs the oval shape diffusor Levigne employed at the front wall??



Rgds
barry

[bpape]

I don't know Mike's room and haven't seen Rives' plan for it - I was purely speaking from the plans I HAD seen of theirs.

Diffusion at reflection points would take into acount the straightline distance from the listener to the diffusor at the angle of reflection.  Diffusion in the REAR or FRONT of the room would be straightline and would have the considerations you suggested.  Personally, I'm not a diffusion in the front of the room kind of guy.  There are too many advantages to absorbtion in the front - not to mention that I don't want my soundstage scattered all over the place in front of me.

The diffusors like Ethan sells have a top and bottom frequency limit and are designed to scatter that range randomly.  The polycylindrical diffusion as shown in the front of Mike's room do not have an upper limit.  They only have a lower limit - to me a large advantage in SOME situations - not all though.  The poly's also are designed to scatter sound evenly around the 180 degree radius - not randomly.  Each place has it's own uses.  Both work well when used properly and with enough space to allow them to function properly.

The other advantage of the poly is that if you build it 'flimsy' and sealed, you can have it do double duty as a tuned membrane absorber - a perfect application for the REAR wall of a room to assist in creating a diffuse surround field and helping to minimize the null that exists in almost all rooms based on the distance from the seating position to the rear wall.

Bryan

[MaxCast]

I'd make the walls non-parallel.  Kind of like a ampatheater.  The back wall would be zig zag.  I'd have built in sofit bass traps along wall intersections.  I'd also have a bar in there.

[bpape]

If you're going to taper walls, understand that it has to be a minimum of about 7 degrees per side to be really effective.  That's giving up a LOT of room volume.  Personally, I'd rather have the space for my speakers to breathe up front.  Also, when you taper the walls, you throw all the basic models of predicting modal activity and locations out the window.  Sometimes you can make it worse if you're not careful.

The one place I might taper would be the ceiling as height related issues are the toughest to deal with.

Bryan

[zybar]

I don't know Mike's room and haven't seen Rives' plan for it - I was purely speaking from the plans I HAD seen of theirs.

Diffusion at reflection points would take into account the straightline distance from the listener to the diffusor at the angle of reflection.  Diffusion in the REAR or FRONT of the room would be straightline and would have the considerations you suggested.  Personally, I'm not a diffusion in the front of the room kind of guy.  There are too many advantages to absorption in the front - not to mention that I don't want my soundstage scattered all over the place in front of me.

The diffusors like Ethan sells have a top and bottom frequency limit and are designed to scatter that range randomly.  The polycylindrical diffusion as shown in the front of Mike's room do not have an upper limit.  They only have a lower limit - to me a large advantage in SOME situations - not all though.  The poly's also are designed to scatter sound evenly around the 180 degree radius - not randomly.  Each place has it's own uses.  Both work well when used properly and with enough space to allow them to function properly.

The other advantage of the poly is that if you build it 'flimsy' and sealed, you can have it do double duty as a tuned membrane absorber - a perfect application for the REAR wall of a room to assist in creating a diffuse surround field and helping to minimize the null that exists in almost all rooms based on the distance from the seating position to the rear wall.

Bryan

I just moved one of Ethan's Diffusors from the front (in between two windows and the speakers) to the back of the room and replaced it with absorption (one of Ethan's MiniTraps).  This led to a very different sound...More focused and forward sounding with a little more depth.  With the Diffusor in the front, the sound was a little more spacious sounding.   

I had a few audio buddies over today and they certainly liked the system with absorption, not diffusion in the front of the room.  I will wait and listen for a few more days before deciding.

George

[95bcwh]

Just by reading the comments so far, I have came to the conclusion that room treatment - just like speakers -are very subjective to personal tastes. There's no single "best design" that everyone can agree on because different people prefer different different presentation - and this difference in taste applies to "consultants" too. That's the reason why I hesitate at this point to recommend any consultant to him, I simply don't know enough of my friend's taste.

I think the best advice I can give to my friend is perhaps not to rush into making a decision of building a room like Levigne - unless he flies to Canada and listens to Levigne's room and decides that it's what he wants. I would suggest that he needs to first experiment with different type of treatments so he can find out what he like/dislike, he should probably start out by building a "pilot" room, get enough absorption panels and different type of diffusors so he can experiment with them.

I have come to appreciate that there is really no short-cut in this audio-fool hobby


 

[JLM]

There's also a guy from Washington state who spent loads on converting an old freestanding barn into a listening room.  Sorry can't remember name, but seems like it was about a year ago when it was discussed/posted.


Using a professional, bigger the better, golden ratios a must, and skewed walls are all good ideas.  The "easy" way to decide would be to visit "ultimate" designs from various consultants and pick the consultant based on which your friend prefers.


Also consider:

Isolation - separate the room from the world.  I used insulated staggered stud walls, but two completely separate rooms would be better.  I used an insulated fiberglass door with weather seals, but two would be even better.  I used insulated flex duct to heat/cool the room (don't think you can do better).  And don't forget to suspend the ceiling from the structure above if the room is in a shared structure.  This was an issue I lost with my builder and can now hear footfalls, washer, dryer, and vacuum.

Make the walls rigid - use plaster over 3/4 inch plywood onto studs spaced at 12 inches on center.  I used normal 5/8 inch drywall on studs at 16 inches on center, but I don't listen at high spls either.

Clean up the power - separate power supplied direct from the utility via its own transformer.  Use 12 gauge wire (heaviest used in residental work) with 20 amp circuit breakers/receptacles.  Use cryo'd hospital grade receptacles.  Ground the audio circuits independently from the rest of the service.  I did all this in a new house with all new appliances.  The audio circuits should be on the top (first in line) of the circuit panel.

At first my room seemed spooky isolated (compared to sharing the open room with the rest of the house/family) but I got over it. 

Speaker type/design - This isn't talked about much as audiophiles want to keep options open, but obviously dipoles/bipoles will have different room interactions than other types.  Infinite baffle subs or extremely large bass horns (that are built into the structure) are a real possiblity when building the ultimate room.  Transmission line designs are said to interact less with the room.  How low of frequency response must be taken into account too.

Consider speaker set up - nearfield helps take the room out of the equation, but many speaker designs work with the room (like Klipschorns).

Room treatments can be added later (season to taste). 

The last step would be electrical equalization.

[ZooDog]

There's also a guy from Washington state who spent loads on converting an old freestanding barn into a listening room.  Sorry can't remember name, but seems like it was about a year ago when it was discussed/posted.

That is Mike Lavigne's room that the OP was referring to.

[csero]

It depends on your music preference. The best if the acoustics of your room resembles the acoustics of the venue where the music could be comfortably performed live.
If you listen mainly jazz or small scale music build a larger live room with lots off diffusion and some absortion.
If you listen to large scale orchestral or live rock and you can not afford to build the Carnegie hall or the Continental Arena, go multichannel in a small but very dead room.

[Ethan Winer]

Just by reading the comments so far, I have came to the conclusion that room treatment - just like speakers -are very subjective to personal tastes. There's no single "best design" that everyone can agree on because different people prefer different different presentation - and this difference in taste applies to "consultants" too.

You are correct that taste is a factor, but there are many basics that never vary. And anyone who disagrees is wrong.

Seriously, one example is that it's not possible to have too much bass trapping. It's impossible to get any room perfectly flat, and with no modal ringing, so you add bass traps until you run out of money or have as many as you can stand to look at. Another example is first reflection treatment. Some may argue for diffusion instead of absorption, but (almost) all agree that something needs to be done to break up the reflections that cause comb filtering and poor imaging.

I also want to address Bryan's comments about poly deflectors versus "real" diffusors such as the models my company sells. The defining difference is that a poly does not reduce comb filtering as well as a QRD style diffusor. At least not the wide shallow polys you usually see. This is the main point of having a diffusor in a home sized room. Let's say you have a ten foot wide area on the rear wall behind you that is close enough to be a source of early reflections. A single poly that wide would protrude into the room so much it's impractical. You could make it less deep, but then it will be like a flat wall and you'll still have comb filtering. In contrast, QRD diffusors can be placed in a group as wide as needed.

--Ethan

[zybar]

Just by reading the comments so far, I have came to the conclusion that room treatment - just like speakers -are very subjective to personal tastes. There's no single "best design" that everyone can agree on because different people prefer different different presentation - and this difference in taste applies to "consultants" too.

You are correct that taste is a factor, but there are many basics that never vary. And anyone who disagrees is wrong.

Seriously, one example is that it's not possible to have too much bass trapping. It's impossible to get any room perfectly flat, and with no modal ringing, so you add bass traps until you run out of money or have as many as you can stand to look at. Another example is first reflection treatment. Some may argue for diffusion instead of absorption, but (almost) all agree that something needs to be done to break up the reflections that cause comb filtering and poor imaging.

I also want to address Bryan's comments about poly deflectors versus "real" diffusors such as the models my company sells. The defining difference is that a poly does not reduce comb filtering as well as a QRD style diffusor. At least not the wide shallow polys you usually see. This is the main point of having a diffusor in a home sized room. Let's say you have a ten foot wide area on the rear wall behind you that is close enough to be a source of early reflections. A single poly that wide would protrude into the room so much it's impractical. You could make it less deep, but then it will be like a flat wall and you'll still have comb filtering. In contrast, QRD diffusors can be placed in a group as wide as needed.

--Ethan

A picture is worth a thousand words:



Ignore the mess as I am still working on getting things permanently mounted and cleaned up.

George

[zybar]

I don't know Mike's room and haven't seen Rives' plan for it - I was purely speaking from the plans I HAD seen of theirs.

Diffusion at reflection points would take into account the straightline distance from the listener to the diffusor at the angle of reflection.  Diffusion in the REAR or FRONT of the room would be straightline and would have the considerations you suggested.  Personally, I'm not a diffusion in the front of the room kind of guy.  There are too many advantages to absorption in the front - not to mention that I don't want my soundstage scattered all over the place in front of me.

The diffusors like Ethan sells have a top and bottom frequency limit and are designed to scatter that range randomly.  The polycylindrical diffusion as shown in the front of Mike's room do not have an upper limit.  They only have a lower limit - to me a large advantage in SOME situations - not all though.  The poly's also are designed to scatter sound evenly around the 180 degree radius - not randomly.  Each place has it's own uses.  Both work well when used properly and with enough space to allow them to function properly.

The other advantage of the poly is that if you build it 'flimsy' and sealed, you can have it do double duty as a tuned membrane absorber - a perfect application for the REAR wall of a room to assist in creating a diffuse surround field and helping to minimize the null that exists in almost all rooms based on the distance from the seating position to the rear wall.

Bryan

I just moved one of Ethan's Diffusors from the front (in between two windows and the speakers) to the back of the room and replaced it with absorption (one of Ethan's MiniTraps).  This led to a very different sound...More focused and forward sounding with a little more depth.  With the Diffusor in the front, the sound was a little more spacious sounding.   

I had a few audio buddies over today and they certainly liked the system with absorption, not diffusion in the front of the room.  I will wait and listen for a few more days before deciding.

George

Here are some before and after pics:

Before



After



George

[Daygloworange]

You are correct that taste is a factor, but there are many basics that never vary. And anyone who disagrees is wrong.

I would definitely agree with Ethan on that one. Your tastes are only going to be as good as what you've been exposed to.

It depends on your music preference. The best if the acoustics of your room resembles the acoustics of the venue where the music could be comfortably performed live.

I would disagree on that one. That's equal to playing back an ambient recording in a another ambience. That's something you want to avoid. Studio control rooms are designed to not add anything that's captured in the live room.

If I were starting with a clean sheet of paper design, and had a real nice budget, I would follow along with control room acoustics. John Storyk is one of the most recognized names in studio design. He has written many, many articles on the principles of room design.

http://www.wsdg.com/

Also, I would recommend you read all the articles that Ethan has written on the topics of bass trapping and comb filtering, whether you choose to use his products or not. He's done an awful lot of homework on the topic. He's also a musician, and a recording engineer, with a lot of years experience. I've learned a lot and applied it to my own experiments, with very positive results.

I wouldn't even draw lines on paper without doing a lot of reading on the topic. And I would trust the advice of these guys who do this for a living.

Cheers

[bpape]

I agree with that.  If anything, you want to come closer to replicating what the mixing engineer heard.  Realistically, you don't want it to be a copy of the venue nor a copy of a mixing room.  Somewhere in between that takes your room's nasties out of the mix is the goal. 

Ethan.

I agree that IF you flatten out the poly's, they don't help much with comb filtering.  Remember that the ones you tried before were very very shallow in comparison to their width - I'd expect them not to do much.  However, one that is built properly and to an appropriate depth certainly will.  Yes, they can get ungainly, but we're talking about a custom room where we have a blank sheet to work with.  Having a 4' wide poly that extends from the wall say 1' will absolutely help with comb filtering.

As for 'real' diffusion, I suppose that's somewhat of a correct term.  The poly's are more 'dispersion' as they scatter evenly and not randomly.

Bryan

[rollo]

Eathan, 

         Good to see you back in action.

    rollo