Too Much Room Treatment?

Is it possible to have too much acoustic room treatment? I wouldn't think so, but I'd rather ask than find out after the fact of spending money on acoustic panels and other room treatment.

My current setup includes heavy carpeting, a 4x6 wall hanging/tapestry on the left side closed wall approximately located at the reflection point for the corresponding main, book case further out on the same side, fabric curtains/panels 2/3s the lengh of the back and an acoustic drop ceiling. I will be adding some acoustic panels (GIK panels recently reviewed or Auralex Studiofoam) or comparable treatment in the front left corner of my room where the sub and front left main is located, but I'm also considering panels further out in the room as well.

This is a dedicated HT, so WAF isn't of utmost importance, but I would like to keep it visually attractive as well as acoustically sound or neutral as possible, which will include replacing the 'That 70s Show' heinous carpeting at some point, just not yet...

Room dimensions are 25'L x 14'W x 8'H. I've attached a couple of somewhat outdated pictures for reference. The 'Old-Front' is almost identical in current layout, the others just for further room ref.

Thanks in advance... -TD

tomd51 said:

Is it possible to have too much acoustic room treatment?

Click to expand...

While it is possible to create an acoustically "dead" room, you're not even close. In fact, you have a pretty good start: assymetrical walls, carpet, padded furniture, and an acoustical ceiling.

I think almost any room that size could use 8-12 panels.

Johnd said:

While it is possible to create an acoustically "dead" room, you're not even close. In fact, you have a pretty good start: assymetrical walls, carpet, padded furniture, and an acoustical ceiling.

Click to expand...

Oh, I didn't think I was close yet, just testing the waters b/f dumping cash into what might be a decent amount of room treatment.

Theoretically speaking, wouldn't having an accoustically "dead" room be the optimal listening environment? This would kill any sound wave reflections and (I assume, which might be a problem ) only present the soundfield directly generated from the source/speakers? -TD

I have 13 panels in my room and not even close to being dead.. Now you can put to much in if it is just rigid fiberglass or foam.. Those kind of things can kill the highs if you use to much.. But if the trap is built with a limp membrane to help reflect some of the highs then you are fine..

Glenn

Hi Glenn, thanks for the input on this. In all honesty, the room isn't terribly bright as it stands, but I have a feeling it could use a bit of help in the front corner where my SVS cylinder and left main reside.

In addition to this, I'm sure it would be a bit more beneficial using 244s along the closed wall than the wall tapestry and bookshelf I'm currently using, I'm really just trying to judge how much would be a good mix before going overboard.

BTW, where are you guys located? I work just inside the top of the Perimeter... -TD

tomd51 said:

Theoretically speaking, wouldn't having an accoustically "dead" room be the optimal listening environment? This would kill any sound wave reflections and (I assume, which might be a problem ) only present the soundfield directly generated from the source/speakers? -TD

Click to expand...

Theoretically speaking, it would be the most "accurate" sound, but not the best sound.

Only mid to late level reflections are bad. We are so used to listening indoors, that we have trained our ears to detect early reflection as an increased amplitude of the initial sound.

Reverb and coloration is a desirable effect of walls. Even reflection (albeit early) is ok. The problem with a dead room is that you would have none of this, and although it will be "pure", it will be substantially lacking desirable reverb and coloration.

Interesting info, John. I wonder how the 2500's built-in parametric equalizer would "tune" the listening environment in a completely reflection-less room.

I would definitely have to agree with you that having "trained" our ears to acknowedge and accept resonance and tonal coloration of untreated listening environments would likely cause most listeners to interpret the sound as lifeless or lacking in clarity... -TD

Tom: I'm sure that would help. IMHO, the proper sequence goes 1) good (best possible) acoustics, 2) equipment choice, 3) placement, setup, calibration and tweaking, and lastly, if needed, 4) source correction. That is my opinion, but I hear what you're saying. Cheers.

I'd agree - not close.

What I would recommend is removing some of the thinner things like the tapestry and replacing it with some good panels 1-2" thick.

The GIK absorbers will help with the bottom end nicely.

When doing control on the front and side walls, try to maintain symmetry left to right at least to the listening position.

I, too, would place the P.E. low on the totem pole of the 'To Do' list, but I do believe it can help in the overall scheme of things. In fact, I think the P.E. is a great utility/feature for those that cannot modify their existing surroundings, but anytime you're boosting or weakening any signal, you're altering the original source which, I assume, can't be a good thing.

The order of approaching a HT setup which you've noted is excellent advice for those who are seriously interested in improving their existing configuration or are just starting out. Unfortunately, all too often (and I've been as guilty as the next guy... ), we rush right out and get the best components we can for the money, while doing very little to the listening environment, which likely will have the biggest impact. But you gotta admit, buying the toys are half the fun... -TD

Agreed. If people put their listening rooms and ht's where they should be, instead of where they usually migrate, or what's convenient, they would not only have a better starting point (an acoustical room), they would not have half the problems that exist in non-acoustical rooms (one or two walls missing, a ceiling, or half a ceiling missing, lots of doors, windows and glass, too much wood, too much concrete, stone or terazzo, etc.).

On the other hand, it's meant to be social and used often. I hate quandaries. Cheers.

Some reverb is beneficial - especially with HT. Optimally, you want 1 reflection from one wall, then absorbtion. Remember, your ears only face out and slightly forward. Surround speakers absorbed into a tapestry/acoustic foam won't optimally reach your ears as well as off a solid surface. Bass traps are a different animal, but to sacrifice sq by overdoing it with excessive room treatments is not ideal. Two channel music is one thing, but 7.1 surround needs some reflective surfaces.

In downtown Columbus, there's a place called COSI - Center of Science and Industry. They have a room completely filled with egg crate type acoustic foam. It's so dead, your ears feel like they're going to explode. If you're not facing someone directly and speak to them, they can't hear you. Everything is absorbed. It is an echo free room. The exhibit allows people to experience sound under conditions of complete sound absorption to show the effect the lack of echoes has on the ability to judge the direction of sound.

bpape said:

I'd agree - not close.

What I would recommend is removing some of the thinner things like the tapestry and replacing it with some good panels 1-2" thick.

The GIK absorbers will help with the bottom end nicely.

When doing control on the front and side walls, try to maintain symmetry left to right at least to the listening position.

Click to expand...

That's definitely in the plan, bpape. Maybe due to the thick/almost shag carpet and acoustic ceiling, the room itself isn't terribly hot as it stands.

When you mention "on the front and side walls, try to maintain symmetry left to right", I understand what you're saying regarding the side walls, but if I'm placing treatments on the front wall behind the equipment, are you saying I should treat the left side identical to the right side of the front wall? -TD

tomd51 said:

Oh, I didn't think I was close yet, just testing the waters b/f dumping cash into what might be a decent amount of room treatment.

Theoretically speaking, wouldn't having an accoustically "dead" room be the optimal listening environment? This would kill any sound wave reflections and (I assume, which might be a problem ) only present the soundfield directly generated from the source/speakers? -TD

Click to expand...

Some people get very unhappy when the only thing they can hear is their speakers.

If you do nothing else but listen to music, and the music is well recorded and the entire audio chain is nice and clean, then an anechoic chamber might well be a decent listening envionment, once you got used to it. But most people would find such a room uncomfortable, even a little eerie. We all spend a lot of time indoors and our minds have become wired to the ambient echo. Messing with the mind's assumptions rarely makes people happy. And anyway, music is largely an indoor phenomena these days, and recordings are made with certain assumptions in mind. Total absorption might make some things just sound... wrong.

Well... I suppose having your ears feel like they're gonna explode every time I invite any guests over probably wouldn't be the best idea... While I would like it rather quiet and well dampened, that might be going a little overboard.

I'm not so sure I'd agree that HT soundtracks or surround sound needs reflective surfaces. Movie theaters themselves are fairly well tamed and I've been in some that sound pretty impressive and not just from a soundstage aspect due to the sheer size. In addition to this, I think the sound engineer would intend for the non-reflected signal to either reach your listening point or within a close proximity in order to re-create the original effect.

ScottMayo said:

Messing with the mind's assumptions rarely makes people happy.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm just speaking for myself, but wouldn't that be half the fun? -TD

tomd51 said:

Well... I suppose having your ears feel like they're gonna explode every time I invite any guests over probably wouldn't be the best idea... While I would like it rather quiet and well dampened, that might be going a little overboard.

Click to expand...

You'd probably like my room - soundproofed (to the extent possible: true soundproofing in a residence is just about impossible), and lots of absorption, with some diffusion. I don't know of a room in which music sounds better (except there's some pop that now sounds so terrible I won't have it on - you can always tell when they were mixing for car speakers).

That's essentially what I'm looking for: good cancellation of reverb and ambient noise. Doesn't have to be an anechoic chamber, but should be pretty tame.

Too bad I'm not still up in MA (grew up few towns over in Westford), I'd make an appointment and stop by your store. Maybe on one of my yearly visits... -TD

tomd51,

As a previous owner of the Yammy 2500, I can tell you if you let it do the PEQ by itself the results are not too spectacular. However, if you manually adjust things using the dealer software (there is a link on this forum somewhere), then you can get pretty decent results. Forget trying to use the remote and doing it, you have to have the software to really do it correctly. You will still get night and day difference from treating the room, the PEQ may just add a few final touches.