Speaker audition

[ack_bak]

Yes. See below...



I went back to the other shop and listened to the Monitor Audio Silver RX6 and the RX8. I liked them much better this time. The RX6 are $1200.00 pr. black or rosenut unfinished wood grain and the RX8's are $1500.00 for the same options. I could not tell much of a difference between the two speakers even though the 8's have the extra woofer. So I listened to 6's more. I really liked them. They imaged well the highs were not harsh and the bass was sufficient.

Thinking about the price of the MA RX6's, I've decided to look closer at EMP. They also make RBH which from I what I have read are very impressive. I'm going to call tomorrow and speak with them to see if there is any trickle down technology from RBH to the EMP's.. I'm looking at the E55Ti towers on sale now for $636.00 pr in the gloss red burl.

EMP Tek E55Ti Tower Speakers--March Madness Sale 3/2012

I have owned numerous RBH speakers over the years and toured their facility in Logan Utah. They are a class act company and make some great speakers. I can only assume some of their designs and knowledge has made it over to their EmpTek line. The nice thing about EmpTek is they have their no hassle return policy which is very nice, because your room will play a big role as to how speakers will sound, vs in a store or someone elses room.

Good luck.

 

[GO-NAD!]

No. I'm saying, if anything, the opposite: that one should choose a loudspeaker with a coverage pattern that works well for the shape, boundary materials, intended furnishings, etc. of that room. A fairly live room will generally work best with narrower pattern speakers. A more absorptive room will likely need wider-pattern speakers. (All that assumes one's goal is maximizing perceived spaciousness, which studies show is the general preference so long as imaging is not too degraded. If one's goal is laser-focus imaging with minimal hall ambience, then perhaps narrow-throw speakers in an absorptive room is one's ideal. The only way one can determine one's preferences on the focus-spaciousness continuum is to listen to well-designed systems with one or the other trait optimized.)

That is to say, not just "which speaker?" but "which speaker for this room and for my sonic preferences?

And, after one has found the speakers that work best in his room, but still has SQ issues, he can apply some EQ and use some room treatment.. Because, let's face it, there is probably a much higher variation in room acoustics than in the radiation patterns of various speakers. But, I'm just surmising here. Your opinion may differ.

The main issue with boundary placement, assuming a competently-designed speaker with a fairly constant midrange pattern and low diffraction, is just excess upper bass reinforcement from the boundaries. That happens to be one thing that DSP room correction is very, very good at fixing.

(Incompetently designed speakers have all sorts of issues with boundaries, because their midrange power response is so crappy.)

Hey, I'm all for the use of DSP as well. It ain't the be all and end all though.

Originally Posted by GO-NAD!
Actually, I'm surprised to read that you admit that the modal region can be an area requiring help.

Why?

Because you had been so anti room treatment up to this point. If I missed a post where you indicated that room treatment would be a legitimate room correction measure under certain circumstances, I apologize.

A 100Hz wave is over 11' long, for instance. What the hell is some little 18" wide pie wedge in the corner supposed to do about that?

I don't recall anybody claiming that "some little 18" wide pie wedge in the corner " would be effective.

Putting a wedge of foam in a corner is easy but pointless. Also, even "bass traps" that are ineffective tend to be larger than the subwoofers needed to smooth the room response would be.)

Buliding lossy pairs of walls (front wall-back wall, etc.) with constrained layer damping is very expensive (both in terms of cost and because it materially reduces the square footage of one's dwelling) and permanent, but has been shown effective in concert with multiple subwoofers. (No "room treatment" works in the bass with a single sub, or two "full-range" mains. Multiple subwoofers are required regardless.)

You're right in that bass traps would be larger than the subwoofers. You're wrong in saying that they are ineffective. They most certainly require volume to be effective. The advantage I have, is that mine are hidden from view behind my false wall. Talking about lossy walls is just code for bass trapping. My bass traps are far, far less expensive than either lossy walls, or buying more than the two subwoofers I have. Plus, I don't have the real estate to place more than two subwoofers. So, in my case, bass trapping has been most appropriate.

Dr. Toole and others have written that correcting FR with EQ fixes the time issues as well.

He has also stated that room treatment is an appropriate measure.

There are some room things that are very important. For instance, keeping the front wall clear of things like equipment racks or anything else that could cause diffraction. And removing stupid obstructions such as coffee tables from between the loudspeakers and the listening position. Such things are universal improvements, but sadly more people in audiophooldom are "auditioning" wires than losing the coffee table for end tables.

No argument with that. The only problem is that some of us don't live in a vacuum and have to compromise on some aspects of our setups.


I think I'm going to bow out of this thread, as it has become a Coke versus Pepsi argument and I've grown bored with it.

 

[MidnightSensi2]

That's one thing I don't understand in theory, though I have observed it, too.

Dr. Toole and others have written that correcting FR with EQ fixes the time issues as well. However, I've taken a single subwoofer, EQ'ed it flat...and the system still had pronounced "room boom." But with the addition of two additional subs and proper calibration, the boominess went away. Completely. Before EQ. (Just adjustments of relative level and phase/delay of each of the three subs.) Even though the observed spatial average was (modestly) worse than the single-sub EQ'ed solution. EQ just added some proverbial whipped cream on top.

It's actually pretty simple, the EQ will lower the amplitude, but it doesn't take care of ringing.

Maybe oversimplified, but here is an example: You have a +6dB peak at 50Hz. You take care of it on a frequency graph using EQ. But when looked at in the time-domain (how long it takes to diminish to null) it looks the same, only the amplitude is lower.

Multiple subwoofers will do the same thing, but take up a lot less space in the room. May be more expensive, though.

Subs generally work best in multiples of 2. So, 2, 4, 6, 8, etc. Yes, more expensive, but, as you found, two gives the possibility to flatten room response dramatically. One subwoofer can get a single listener pretty good response, but multiple listeners it becomes extremely difficult. With 2 subwoofers, the amplitude around the room can be tweaked much easier by allowing the subwoofers to 'cancel and fill' using proper placement.

Still, doesn't solve the time domain. You want that bass to get in and get out quickly, thus bass traps. Turning that energy into heat instead of sound bouncing around and standing waves.

 

[Nuance AH]

I think I'm going to bow out of this thread, as it has become a Coke versus Pepsi argument and I've grown bored with it.

Even science and publicly available objective and subjective studies cannot change the minds of some.

This adage is repeated constantly. Yet that's not the conclusion a lot of rather prominent people, including Dr. Sean Olive, seem to suggest. What is a room with poor acoustics and actually how likely is it above the shroeder frequency, to be someone here's actual room?

Yes it is repeated often, and for a reason. As already mentioned, Dr. Toole has stated room treatments are an appropriate measure. Where does Sean Olive conclude that a great speaker will still sound great in a room with poor acoustics? I understand that we can acclimatize to our listening space, but that doesn't mean the room is acoustically sound or that we should subjective ourselves to such a scenario. I don't ask for argument's sake, but because I actually want to know and will read Dr. Olive's conclusions if they are available. Thanks.

 

[ack_bak]

Folks. There are plenty of threads out there where measurements were taken before and after room treatment. I can't recall any threads in the dedicated build forums where people who applied room treatments actually had a worse sounding room, and worse measurements.

As for cost, you don't have to bet the farm. If you a building dedicated home theater room, you can consult with some very reputable companies for around $500. That price includes detailed plans for your room, and guidance from professionals who do this for a living.

There are very cost effective solutions out there if you want to buy the panels or traps, of if you are handy, you can go DIY and it is a very minimal cost.

I recommend people actually do some research, take the time to learn, and actually try to listen to how good a room can sound in a dedicated space that was designed with acoustics in mind.

 

[psbfan9]

There are very cost effective solutions out there if you want to buy the panels or traps, of if you are handy, you can go DIY and it is a very minimal cost.

.

Ask Alex about this...

 

[Nuance AH]

I forgot to respond to this before, so I will here:

He owns Revel Salon 2s and Linkwitz Orions in an untreated room. Better speakers than 99% of this thread owns or possibly even has heard. A worse room than the treatment advocates likely have. Do you guys honestly think he's getting worse sound with his Salons than the treatment guys would be getting splitting the invested money between speakers and treatments?

That depends on how much the room is playing into the equation. I think it is very possible ADTG's room is contributing too much to the sound, while it is also very possible it isn't. He claims he purchased panels, placed them and heard no difference. If that's true, then he's all set. Also, no one said you need to split your speaker investment and use half for speakers and half for treatments. In general a room can be fixed for a much lower cost than a great pair of speakers, making your hypothetical scenario is bit silly.

Our own Audioholics has an article dealing with this topic.

How Does Listening Room Acoustics Affect Sound Quality? — Reviews and News from Audioholics

Here are the first two paragraphs:

"Unfortunately, where sound quality is concerned, the acoustics of the listening room is rarely taken into account. Indeed, most people opt for expensive, top of the range sound systems in an attempt to reach the best-possible sound quality. But they often ignore one essential thing: the acoustics of the listening room itself. As a sound system is used in an enclosed space ‘a listening room’, the acoustical conditions of that room will inevitably take control over the sound quality.

This first article focuses on the main acoustical problems of the listening room and on how they deteriorate the perceived sound. In the next articles, each of those topics (acoustical phenomena) will be developed and will be accompanied with practical advice to improve the acoustical conditions of a listening room."

I'm not seeing what there is to further discuss. Industry professionals have already proven that room acoustics greatly affect the sound we hear, and that the room needs to be acoustically sound/neutralized (there are many professionals out there besides Toole and Olive, by the way). That doesn't mean the room should be dead or full of reverberation, but instead reaching a mean (neutrality). If you prefer a sound dominated by the room - cool. It doesn't mean that's "correct," though, and it doesn't mean others will prefer it.

The most important thing is that we're all happy with how things sound, no matter how vastly our methods differ. Just remember, your subjective experiences are only opinions, so try not to push them as fact, especially when actual professionals have concluded differently.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Yes. See below...



I went back to the other shop and listened to the Monitor Audio Silver RX6 and the RX8. I liked them much better this time. The RX6 are $1200.00 pr. black or rosenut unfinished wood grain and the RX8's are $1500.00 for the same options. I could not tell much of a difference between the two speakers even though the 8's have the extra woofer. So I listened to 6's more. I really liked them. They imaged well the highs were not harsh and the bass was sufficient.

Thinking about the price of the MA RX6's, I've decided to look closer at EMP. They also make RBH which from I what I have read are very impressive. I'm going to call tomorrow and speak with them to see if there is any trickle down technology from RBH to the EMP's.. I'm looking at the E55Ti towers on sale now for $636.00 pr in the gloss red burl.

EMP Tek E55Ti Tower Speakers--March Madness Sale 3/2012

Cool. I also like RBH a lot. Love their T2P.

 

[MidnightSensi2]

Yes it is repeated often, and for a reason. As already mentioned, Dr. Toole has stated room treatments are an appropriate measure. Where does Sean Olive conclude that a great speaker will still sound great in a room with poor acoustics? I understand that we can acclimatize to our listening space, but that doesn't mean the room is acoustically sound or that we should subjective ourselves to such a scenario. I don't ask for argument's sake, but because I actually want to know and will read Dr. Olive's conclusions if they are available. Thanks.

I haven't read it, but I do know that one of the concepts behind studio 'near-field' monitors is simply that they are positioned so close to the listener that the room 'issues' has less influence on the sound. Basically, because your sitting so close to the speaker, you listen at a lower volume, so the amplitude of what hits your ears is significantly higher than what is lingering in the room (sound falloff is not linear, its a inverse square), allowing you to hear more detail without as advanced of a treated room. Of course, even in advanced treated rooms they still use nearfield monitors (due to reflections off the mixing boards and other equipment).

I find it hard to believe that a good speaker will still sound good in a bad room though, especially far-field or midfield. This seems like more of a psychological study (which is just as interesting!).

Folks. There are plenty of threads out there where measurements were taken before and after room treatment. I can't recall any threads in the dedicated build forums where people who applied room treatments actually had a worse sounding room, and worse measurements.

I've seen rooms that had too much high frequency treatments that left the room sounding muddy because the low end didn't have enough treatment, but, yeah, a well thought out treatment plan is usually a step in the right direction.

Not as much in my listening room since it's concrete, but one of the first things I hear is the circa 70Hz humming off the walls in like midwestern-type drywall houses. If I was ever to construct a wall from scratch for a listening room I'd try to raise that fundamental frequency into something easier to treat (or perhaps do some research and find out to eliminate it). Generally applying something with a modulus of elasticity one order of magnitude under that of the material that humming will greatly lower it's fundamental frequency. Example I've tried before is applying Line-X to E-glass fiberglass, amazing results.

 

[DS-21]

It's actually pretty simple, the EQ will lower the amplitude, but it doesn't take care of ringing.

It's unfortunately not that simple at all.

In theory, at least down low, time and frequency response are the same thing! If there's no peak, there's no ringing. Simple as that.

However, my experience (and I'm curious if others have shared it) is that a well-EQ'ed sub in the corner will still give "room boom." However, multiple subs with a similar measured response, will not.

(properly measured, i.e. a spatial average of the sound power over the primary listening position.)

To further muck things up, a single EQ'ed sub in the nearfield (say, close enough for you to be able to kick the cone in) can sound quite clean, so long as one stays in the nearfield.

Subs generally work best in multiples of 2. So, 2, 4, 6, 8, etc.

No.

There's nothing magic about even numbers. In fact, even numbers can get you in trouble, because there's a tendency to place even numbers subs symmetrically.
Symmetrical placement (due respect to Welti and Devantier, who didn't study asymmetrical placement in the oft-cited study) is not the right way to go. At least if one's goal is to randomize excitation of room modes such that the overall field is smooth. (My experience with different multisub configurations over the past 7 years or so has convinced me that goal is the right one.) The best way to do that is to use subwoofers of varied tunings, randomly placed in the room in all three dimensions. (Height is the oft-overlooked one.)

Yes, more expensive, but, as you found, two gives the possibility to flatten room response dramatically.

I used three, not two, subs.

One subwoofer can get a single listener pretty good response,

With room-boom, IME, unless the sub is in the nearfield.

With 2 subwoofers, the amplitude around the room can be tweaked much easier by allowing the subwoofers to 'cancel and fill' using proper placement.

Still, doesn't solve the time domain.

Subjectively, as I wrote above, yes it does. (I haven't taken time domain measurements, because I don't see them as terribly useful. See Toole's discussion of time domain resolution in Sound Reproduction.)

Keep in mind that a subwoofer can act as a source as well as a sink. That is to say, it can also remove energy from the room! Otherwise, peaks would never be reduced by the addition of extra subs.

Folks. There are plenty of threads out there where measurements were taken before and after room treatment. I can't recall any threads in the dedicated build forums where people who applied room treatments actually had a worse sounding room, and worse measurements.

Well, if they were worse they probably wouldn't have been posted.

But there aren't any objective metrics for the two things we're primarily talking about here, image focus and spaciousness. Yet, at least.

For movies, that might not be an issue. I don't care about movies, however. I'm concerned about the reproduction of music.

 

[Nuance AH]

But there aren't any objective metrics for the two things I'm primarily talking about here, image focus and spaciousness. Yet, at least.

I fixed it for you. The majority are talking about it in a broader context, not being limited to image focus and spaciousness.

Until objective proof is presented showing room acoustics don't matter, this conversation is moot. Have a nice day gentlemen!

 

[DS-21]

I fixed it for you.

In an incompetent manner.

IThe majority are talking about it in a broader context, not being limited to image focus and spaciousness.

Such as what, exactly? As to timbre/spectral balance, see Toole, supra. (And infra.)

Until objective proof is presented showing room acoustics don't matter, this conversation is moot. Have a nice day gentlemen!

Why would anyone provide "objective proof" of something that no reasonable person intellectually competent to participate in this discussion can say has been claimed?

Indeed, it takes quite a bit of delusional non-reasoning to go from
-"pick speakers with a directivity pattern that fits the conditions of one's room and one's preferences as to image focus and spaciousness" (me, supra, paraphrased), or
-"It appears, therefore, that we can acclimatize to our listening environment to such an extent that we are able to listen through it to appreciate qualities intrinsic to the sound sources themselves. It is as if we can separate the sound of a spectrum that is changing (the sounds from the different loudspeakers)" (Toole, supra)

To "room acoustics don't matter" (your misinterpretation of other's words).

 

[Irvrobinson]

In an incompetent manner.

You two make me wish there was a "No Thanks" button, to send a different sort of message regarding a post...

Ya know, for two smart people who I generally enjoy reading you're behaving like children.

 

[Nuance AH]

You two make me wish there was a "No Thanks" button, to send a different sort of message regarding a post...

Ya know, for two smart people who I generally enjoy reading you're behaving like children.

You're right. I apologize (especially to the OP) and will refrain from here on out.

 

[DS-21]

You two make me wish there was a "No Thanks" button, to send a different sort of message regarding a post...

Dislike it or not, it is an accurate comment. His every reply to me in this thread has been filled with intellectual dishonesty and a startling lack of reading comprehension. Both of my words, and those of his chosen prophet, Dr. Floyd Toole.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Dislike it or not, it is an accurate comment. His every reply to me in this thread has been filled with intellectual dishonesty and a startling lack of reading comprehension. Both of my words, and those of his chosen prophet, Dr. Floyd Toole.

Alright, I'll invent my own button. ** No Thanks **

 

[zieglj01]

Time to get back to enjoying our own personal systems - that which
brings you (personal), joy and fun.

 

[MidnightSensi2]

It's unfortunately not that simple at all.

In theory, at least down low, time and frequency response are the same thing! If there's no peak, there's no ringing. Simple as that.

Well, time and frequency response aren't the same thing, but I think I understand what you mean to say (Correct me if I'm wrong) is that 'time and a given frequency' are directly proportional because frequency is simply how many cycles in a given period of time.

True at the speaker, but once the rooms fundamental frequencies (room modes, is the vernacular in sound design) get excited they ring after the bass note has stopped. What a rooms fundamental frequencies are can actually be calculated using a pretty simple formula the length, width and height (there are also some gadgets online and spreadsheets that will do it for you).

However, my experience (and I'm curious if others have shared it) is that a well-EQ'ed sub in the corner will still give "room boom." However, multiple subs with a similar measured response, will not.

To further muck things up, a single EQ'ed sub in the nearfield (say, close enough for you to be able to kick the cone in) can sound quite clean, so long as one stays in the nearfield.

Absolutely! I have shared the same experience. Same reason as mentioned before, the rooms fundamental frequencies get excited and even though we EQ'd down the amplitude/peaks where the waves were constructive, we still have ringing. We only solved a portion of the problem using EQ.

The reason in the nearfield it sounds much cleaner is because sound falloff is an inverse square, so by being closer to the subwoofer the ringing in the room is less noticeable.

No.

There's nothing magic about even numbers. In fact, even numbers can get you in trouble, because there's a tendency to place even numbers subs symmetrically.
Symmetrical placement (due respect to Welti and Devantier, who didn't study asymmetrical placement in the oft-cited study) is not the right way to go. At least if one's goal is to randomize excitation of room modes such that the overall field is smooth. (My experience with different multisub configurations over the past 7 years or so has convinced me that goal is the right one.) The best way to do that is to use subwoofers of varied tunings, randomly placed in the room in all three dimensions. (Height is the oft-overlooked one.)

Well, your really not trying to randomize the excitation of room modes, your trying to manage them. Your room will have a first, second, third, etc. fundamental frequency from the height, width and length of the room. The reason multiples of two seem to work best is because if placed in the voids/cancellations of the second (hence two subwoofers) mode, they are in opposite polarity regions of the odd number modes 1 and 3. 4th is generally well above the subwoofer crossover frequency.

Keep in mind that a subwoofer can act as a source as well as a sink. That is to say, it can also remove energy from the room! Otherwise, peaks would never be reduced by the addition of extra subs.

Well, the subwoofer(s) itself is still an energy source. But, yes, when waves collide destructively, like you said, they cancel eachother. Again, I think I'm just rephrasing what you mean...I don't mean to come off like a prick!

Well, if they were worse they probably wouldn't have been posted.

Hey hey hey. I'm proud to post my ****ups. I learn from them and hope to teach others not to follow my footsteps. Hehe. I'm King ****up.

 

[GranteedEV]

That depends on how much the room is playing into the equation. I think it is very possible ADTG's room is contributing too much to the sound, while it is also very possible it isn't. He claims he purchased panels, placed them and heard no difference. If that's true, then he's all set.

Actually, all that means is the panels didn't do anything useful.

Also, no one said you need to split your speaker investment and use half for speakers and half for treatments. In general a room can be fixed for a much lower cost than a great pair of speakers, making your hypothetical scenario is bit silly.

How do you define "fixing" a room? Is a few panels "fixing" a room?

"Unfortunately, where sound quality is concerned, the acoustics of the listening room is rarely taken into account. Indeed, most people opt for expensive, top of the range sound systems in an attempt to reach the best-possible sound quality. But they often ignore one essential thing: the acoustics of the listening room itself. As a sound system is used in an enclosed space ‘a listening room’, the acoustical conditions of that room will inevitably take control over the sound quality.

This first article focuses on the main acoustical problems of the listening room and on how they deteriorate the perceived sound. In the next articles, each of those topics (acoustical phenomena) will be developed and will be accompanied with practical advice to improve the acoustical conditions of a listening room."

The room is second only to the loudspeaker in what we hear.

That's mostly just a testament to how meaningless it is to waste time on DACs, Preamps, Amps, Cables, etc - not that the loudspeaker isn't the single most important investment and does not mean that a truly good loudspeaker in a mediocre room won't sound good.

For all your arguing in favor of room treatments, I'm willing to wager you've invested more in dacs/amps/preamps than you have on your room.

I'm not seeing what there is to further discuss. Industry professionals have already proven that room acoustics greatly affect the sound we hear,

In large rooms or recording studios, perhaps. No proof i've seen that living rooms need treatments when appropriate speakers are used in them.

That doesn't mean the room should be dead or full of reverberation, but instead reaching a mean (neutrality).

*of late-arrive sound. If you reduce late arriving sound you really just reduce spaciousness. Early arriving sound is produced by the loudspeaker and affects timbre (where neutrality is more significant). IF the room is contributing negatively to early arriving sound then that implies there is a loudspeaker problem.

Now there's places where it's almost impossible for a loudspeaker to not be a problem. Namely, ceiling reflections of most loudspeakers will be poor because most loudspeakers have poor radiation in the vertical directions. This includes even high end speakers like Salons and Soundscapes.

But it's not an issue that the room is contributing poor sound, rather that the room is revealing loudspeaker issues. I'm willing to accept that most rooms will benefit from ceiling diffusion and floor absorption - only because most loudspeakers have poor vertical off axis response.

If you prefer a sound dominated by the room - cool. It doesn't mean that's "correct," though, and it doesn't mean others will prefer it.

The vice versa also applies. If you prefer a sound with no room - cool. It doesn't mean THAT is "correct", though, and it doesn't mean others will prefer it.

The biggest advantage to a custom room is below the shroeder frequency, where you can get bass response to +/- 1db which is impossible in a typical room.

If you're willing to trade some bass accuracy then a living room is acceptable. Acoustic panels won't do anything in the bass unless they're huge, which you yourself have said you're not willing to live with aesthetically. So you end up with half-assed acoustic panels which do more harm than good.

 

[Nuance AH]

Actually, all that means is the panels didn't do anything useful.

After seeing his room, I can see why.

How do you define "fixing" a room? Is a few panels "fixing" a room?

That depends entirely on said room. In general a few panels will not do it. However, when comparing the cost of proper resolution to a $22,000/pair of speakers, it's minuscule. As I mentioned earlier, treating below the Schroeder Frequency is what is most important.

The room is second only to the loudspeaker in what we hear.

I never stated otherwise. As has been so eloquently pointed out, without speakers there is not sound at all.

For all your arguing in favor of room treatments, I'm willing to wager you've invested more in dacs/amps/preamps than you have on your room.

Absolutely! Those things are expensive!

In large rooms or recording studios, perhaps. No proof i've seen that living rooms need treatments when appropriate speakers are used in them.

Have you ever seen great-room layouts with huge vaulted ceilings and openings into dining rooms and kitchens? These are becoming more popular these days.

Now there's places where it's almost impossible for a loudspeaker to not be a problem. Namely, ceiling reflections of most loudspeakers will be poor because most loudspeakers have poor radiation in the vertical directions. This includes even high end speakers like Salons and Soundscapes.

But it's not an issue that the room is contributing poor sound, rather that the room is revealing loudspeaker issues. I'm willing to accept that most rooms will benefit from ceiling diffusion and floor absorption - only because most loudspeakers have poor vertical off axis response.

You do realize that's what I am talking about, right? Floor/ceiling bounce can play a role, as will room modes below the Schroeder frequency. Depending on the room I might add some diffusion on the side walls and absorption behind the speakers and the LP, but it's highly dependent on many variables. The latter is more of a subjective tuning than anything.

The vice versa also applies. If you prefer a sound with no room - cool. It doesn't mean THAT is "correct", though, and it doesn't mean others will prefer it.

I agree. Remember, I said you need to find a mean (a balance).

The biggest advantage to a custom room is below the shroeder frequency, where you can get bass response to +/- 1db which is impossible in a typical room.

Right, but you don't need a custom room to treat some of that. Bass traps do work, especially corner style ones from floor to ceiling.

If you're willing to trade some bass accuracy then a living room is acceptable. Acoustic panels won't do anything in the bass unless they're huge, which you yourself have said you're not willing to live with aesthetically. So you end up with half-assed acoustic panels which do more harm than good.

I mostly agree - again it all depends on the room. "Acoustic panels" does include bass traps, broadband traps and the like, so using that term loosely is a bit misleading. I assume you're talking about thin absorption panels. Bass traps do work, and are something I am willing to live with. I'd also recommend treating the floor and ceiling depending on the room (all hard wood is a good example), but you'll notice I never said just start throwing up panels and be done (carpets, furnishings, drapes - they can all be considering a form of treatment). In my opinion picking the properly proportioned room is more important than treating it. For those who cannot do that ahead of time, though, treatment is a good place to start (after picking great speakers, of course).

It would seem we agree more than we disagree. Sometimes it's hard to convey one's thoughts through simple text...too many things get lost in translation. You're a smart guy, Grant, and I appreciate your contributions to this forum. Now if only I could get you to attend one of our audio meetings and have you participate is some of our real life tests. Why does all of AH live so far away?