How about posting pictures of your treated listening room?

KCI-JohnP · « **Reply #20 on:** 6 May 2004, 08:22 pm »

Wow, looks like you guys have some really nice music rooms! We are getting close to finishing our Music/HT room and I am very interested in treatment. Our room is 21L x 17W x 8H. How much of a difference would you say the treatment made in your room vs how the room was before treatment?

zybar · « **Reply #21 on:** 6 May 2004, 08:27 pm »

Room treatment is absolutely essential and shouldn't be viewed as one of the last things to do or something to throw a few remaining dollars at.

When done right, room treatment has ALWAYS made a significant improvement to the sound of my system.

It is enough of a difference that my wife easily notices it!

George

F-100 · « **Reply #22 on:** 6 May 2004, 08:34 pm »

Joker,
Nice avitar but can you use something that is not so pornographic

Thanks,

John Casler · « **Reply #23 on:** 6 May 2004, 09:05 pm »

Quote from: Ethan Winer

George,

> Here's a few <

Looking good. You cut and placed the foam panels on the ceiling just right.

--Ethan

Hi Ethan,

I was asking about that "orientation" of those foam panels in George's room.

What is your reasoning for that particular orientation? Are they for first bounce ceiling reflections? Or has that orientation something to do with interaction with your traps on the sides?

If for first bounce, I would think that having the ridges run parallel with the speaker baffle would be the ideal.

Thanks.

KCI-JohnP · « **Reply #24 on:** 7 May 2004, 11:44 am »

Quote from: F-100

Joker,
Nice avitar but can you use something that is not so pornographic
Thanks,

I have changed it, but do you really consider that "pornographic"?? Wow. Is a female in a bathingsuit pornograpic?

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #25 on:** 7 May 2004, 11:56 am »

I thought the "knob's" looked pretty good

..........tho a little plastic !

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #26 on:** 7 May 2004, 12:10 pm »

The new avatar is hilarious!

I also wonder if the old one may have been surgically enhanced...

At any rate, those are some nicely treated rooms.

KCI-JohnP · « **Reply #27 on:** 7 May 2004, 12:49 pm »

Quote from: zybar

Room treatment is absolutely essential and shouldn't be viewed as one of the last things to do or something to throw a few remaining dollars at.
When done right, room treatment has ALWAYS made a significant improvement to the sound of my system.
It is enough of a difference that my wife easily notices it!
George

George,
Whoa, your wife easily notices it!

Then it's defiantly worth it. Did you make your own or buy? I have been considering possibly a combination of 8th nerve and RealTraps. I'm not such a greay DIY type guy, more along the lines of Tim "The Tool Man" Taylor! lol. I usually bleed when I try DIY type stuff. Anyway, Thanks for your advice.

Rob,
Glad you like this one, was afraid I may "offend" a Martial Arts guy or Anti-Gun type's!

I like Guns, Girls, Martial Arts and I don't like breast cancer! lol.

Ethan Winer · « **Reply #28 on:** 7 May 2004, 01:36 pm »

John,

> Are they for first bounce ceiling reflections? <

Yes, they're simply placed on the ceiling in line with the reflection points. George lives only half an hour away from me, so I went to see his setup recently and contibuted what I could. I'm not a fan of foam, but it's okay for mid/high frequencies and he already had some. So I suggested he place them there.

> If for first bounce, I would think that having the ridges run parallel with the speaker baffle would be the ideal. <

I doubt the ridges really do that much.

--Ethan

ohenry · « **Reply #29 on:** 7 May 2004, 02:00 pm »

Has anyone tried hanging sheers (curtains) in front of wall treatments to conceal them? Would that diminish the effectiveness of those products? Or has anyone successfully used heavy fabrics as room treatments and if so, what type(s)?

I can't quite get passed the look of the foam/panels and it seems that more traditional furnishings could provide some acoustic treatment and be aesthetically pleasing (to someone like me).

John Casler · « **Reply #30 on:** 7 May 2004, 08:24 pm »

Quote from: Ethan Winer

John,

> Are they for first bounce ceiling reflections? <

Yes, they're simply placed on the ceiling in line with the reflection points. George lives only half an hour away from me, so I went to see his setup recently and contibuted what I could. I'm not a fan of foam, but it's okay for mid/high frequencies and he already had some. So I suggested he place them there.

> If for first bounce, I would think that having the ridges run parallel with the speaker baffle would be the ideal. <

I doubt the ridges really do that much.

--Ethan

Hi Nathan,

That actually is the question.

"DO" the ridges in a wedge shaped foam do that much? And if they do, what do they do?

I would say "they might". Much is dependent on the quality of the foam. I have seen some that are rather dense and others that are rather light.

Obviously the more dense and deeper the foam, the more effective and greater frequency range is affected.

As far as the "orientation", if we make the assumption that the "the" soundwaveform we are attempting to "absorb/block" is the wave directly from the speaker driver, then we can see that if the "ridges" are arranged perpendicular to the front baffle, that the full depth of the foam will be reduced by an enormous amount since it will only be "full depth" at the very peaks. Every valley in the foam will be much less effective. In fact once the soundwave hits the thinnest portions of the foam and reflects (and it will big time) it is almost as if it hit nothing.

I would think this best (if it could be) for those who want partial reflection.

Orienting the "ridges" to run parallel to the front baffle causes the soundwave to "see" a much deeper (depth) section of foam and subsequently would cause greater absorption.

Even if the soundwave only travels through the peak of the first ridge, it and penetrates easily through it, it wil then encounter a lower and thicker area of the next ridge, and finally almost the full depth of the next.

I would say this has to be more effective, overall than the other orientation (perpendicular to baffle) for treating first reflection highs and upper mids.

In fact, I would think that the using the foam in those two orientations might "halve" or "double" the effectivenss, depending on your perspective.

I think this might be even more valuable in the the cheaper, less dense foams since they do let "large amounts" of sound energy through.

Additionally, as we know, as sound encounters a reflective surface, such as a ceiling or wall, the pressure wave is deflected and or directed along that surface. The parallel to front baffle would "seem" to offer the advantage of "reaching lower in the frequency spectrum, again due to a "greater depth" of absorbing material, since longer wave forms have more energy and require denser and thicker material to interupt their journey.

I trust that makes sense?

byteme · « **Reply #31 on:** 7 May 2004, 08:59 pm »

Not nearly as far reaching as most posted, however, my wife uses the room too!

The back of the room is treated similarly basically a mirror image, in addition, the corner to the left of the DVD cabinet is also treated the same, with 8th nerve seams and corners.

While not ideal, fabric blinds do come down to cover the rear and side windows. As with most things, it's a compromise!

Housteau · « **Reply #32 on:** 8 May 2004, 05:59 am »

Here is a recent change to my front wall. The panels are your standard variety of acoustic foam that I framed to match my speakers, storage racks and trim around the room. Tube traps are in the corners and the framed print is mounted so to reflect upward and away from the listener. In the manufacturers literature Infinity highly suggests that the walls behind the mid/tweeter panels be left bare. Please forgive the low resolution picture.

The rear wall area is a bit more unusual. I have a friend that is a sculptor. I had purchased this from one of his shows and had him install it for me, as per his original intent for the piece. It allows the wall directly behind my listening seat to be diffusive. My seat is very close to that wall, so in reality it doesn't really matter that much.

I am very pleased with the sound in my room and I am a very, very tough critic. For some reason everything just seems to work out acoustically. Personally I think I just got off lucky as I seem to have gone against the grain and contemporary thought here and there. However, my choices have worked whether I can logically explain why or not

.

Ethan Winer · « **Reply #33 on:** 8 May 2004, 12:54 pm »

John,

> if the "ridges" are arranged perpendicular to the front baffle <

I don't think the ridges are doing what they might appear to. The main reason foam is textured is to increase its surface area. That helps it absorb high frequencies, but at the expense of reducing its effectiveness at low frequencies. Either way, sound that strikes any part of the foam surface is absorbed. It's not like the ridges serve as a baffle to block sound or deflect it. That would be true if the foam were reflective, but it's not. All of the surfaces and edges absorb.

--Ethan

cjr888 · « **Reply #34 on:** 8 May 2004, 05:49 pm »

Housteau,

Layout looks very nice, and like how you framed the foam -- took something very utilitarian, and made it look attractive.

You really should let Han Solo free though.

Housteau · « **Reply #35 on:** 8 May 2004, 07:31 pm »

"You really should let Han Solo free though."

That is exactly where Patrick got the inspiration for this work

. Just about all of his sculpture is life size and more than a bit out of the ordinary.

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #36 on:** 9 May 2004, 02:37 am »

Housteau,

Housteau · « **Reply #37 on:** 9 May 2004, 05:37 am »

The room is not very large. It is approx. 21.5 x 15.5 and the ceiling reaches a 12' peak. I had the room built around 10 years ago before I knew what I know now about room acoustics. I have picked up so much over the last year alone from being a member here at The AudioCircle and other forums (such as yours Ethan).

Basically, I copied a room from a friend that I knew to work extremely well with my speakers and associated gear. Instead of running the gauntlet and playing hit and miss with a variety of room dimensions that mathmatically should work, I just went for the sure thing and never looked back.

However, if I am given the chance to do it all over again armed with the knowledge from these various forums and discussions, I may opt for a different arrangement. Even though having the speakers along the long wall has worked very well for me in this room, most of the concensus from forum discussions seems to be that this is not the ideal way to go. I do believe that I got lucky with this room, but I may not try to extend that luck to another room. More than likely the next time, assuming I am given one, I will try to set a room up where I can have the speakers firing into the longer length of the room.

If I would do that I would not want to give up what I enjoy so much about the long wall placement, a wide separation between the speakers and a lot of space between the speakers and the side walls. I had tried an experiment with my room and switching things around, but the presentation became so much smaller and I didn't reap any of the benefits I was expecting to experience. So, a width of 15.5' is not wide enough for me.

Dave

klh · « **Reply #38 on:** 9 May 2004, 07:31 am »

Housteau,

Do you mind revealing what equipment you have in your system (speakers, pre/pro, amp, room treatment, cables etc) and what you like/dislike about them?

Thanks,

Krister

MaxCast · « **Reply #39 on:** 9 May 2004, 12:08 pm »

".....I always feel like.....sombody's watching me...."