Why Acoustic Room Treatments? Video Shows It Better Than I Can Say It!

[FirstReflection]

I'm one of the guys around here who harps on about the importance of your room. I declare it to be a full 50% of your sound system. I espouse how your speakers are the only piece of gear that comes anywhere close to being as important as the room itself.

And most controversially, I frequently recommend that people spend a sizeable amount of their audio budget on acoustic room treatments!

Many people consider acoustic treatments to be something of a "tweak". A nicety or luxury that maybe they'll get around to one day. But the lion's share of the time, I see people lusting after better speakers, better amps, better players, or, gasp, maybe even better cables before they give acoustic treatments so much as a second glance! If someone has around $2500 to spend on a 5.1 sound system, I think you'd find most people recommending that person spend $1250 on the speakers, $500 on the subwoofer, $500 on the receiver, and the remaining $250 on a player and cables.

I, on the other hand, would much rather spend $450 on speakers, $350 on a subwoofer, $350 on an AV Receiver, $150 on a player and cables, and the remaining $1200(!) on acoustic treatments.

Why, on Earth, would I recommend spending just as much on acoustic treatments as on all the gear combined? Because, like I said, I consider the room to be a full 50% of the sound system.

But me just saying all this doesn't make it happen. I can flap my gums and write novel-length posts about it. But hearing is believing!

So, folks, have a gander at this video: High End Listening room Pardubice - YouTube

The fellow in that video has several more examples. But I don't think any of them demonstrate as clearly and obviously - regardless of what speakers you're using to watch the video! - just how much of a difference acoustic treatments really make!

Hearing it for yourself really says it all. But what's even better in that video is how the room has supposedly "ideal" acoustic dimensions: dimensions that adhere to the "golden ratio". And the gear being used is pretty high end stuff. If you think a room with good dimensions and high end gear are all you need; if you think your hard earned money is best spent on upgrading your gear, rather than on acoustic treatments; if you think acoustic treatments are a "tweak", or something to be put at the very bottom of your to do list; please, Please, PLEASE watch that video, and then come back and tell me you still think that way

Don't get me wrong: I LOVE the gear. I lust after the gear as much as anybody here. And when money is no object, I'm ALL FOR upgrading speakers, and subwoofers, and amps, and players. But along with all that, and BEFORE spending large sums of cash to get upgraded gear, I say the room's acoustics MUST be addressed. The room's acoustics are the platform upon which all the gear must perform!

So don't give acoustic treatments the short shrift. Don't call them a "tweak", and don't make them an afterthought. Acoustic treatments should be at the TOP of your list - right up there with speakers, a sub, and a receiver. And don't, for a second, think it is somehow a "waste" to spend money on acoustic treatments BEFORE spending that money on your next gear upgrade.

I hope this will help at least a few people out there to understand where I'm coming from. And as much as I love to recommend new speakers, and subs, and amps, and all the rest; if you're upgrading your gear, and you haven't spent a good amount on acoustic treatments first, I have to caution that you might be throwing good money after bad. Spend your money where it counts. Improve the part of your system that matters the most. They might not be sexy, they might not be sleek, but acoustic treatments might just be the best purchase you'll ever make. And when we're all here because we love audio and home theatre, ignoring literally the largest component in your system just doesn't make a lick of sense.

Treat your rooms, folks. Treat them good, and they'll treat you good right back

 

[96cobra10101]

Good info. Loved the Sanford and Son theme, forgot how good that song was.

 

[shadyJ]

Problem is, most room treatments have an extremely low WAF. It seems like its hard enough getting the significant other to go along with a medium sized subwoofer or tower speakers, let alone a bunch of blocky decor. This is aside from the problem of properly analyzing and applying treatments, which, in my understanding, is very involved and best left to a specialist which is likely to be expensive. Anyway, the guys in that video started with a totally untreated room, and most rooms aren't likely to be that bad.

 

[FirstReflection]

True, true, the WAF is a problem. Printed (or dyed) panels that can be made to look like literally any poster or work of art that you like can certainly go a long way towards helping the WAF. But the printed/dyed panels are also considerably more expensive than the plain fabric ones. It's a potential solution, at least But I can certainly understand being unable to afford an entire room's worth of printed/dyed panels.

The absolute best acoustics do require measurement, and likely the services of a professional. But you can get a tremendous amount of advice and improvement for free!

GiK Acoustics

and

Auralex

both offer free Room Analysis services! So there is no financial reason to avoid getting some advice from the acoustic experts at those companies!

While an irregularly shaped room will likely require measurements and specialized design to achieve truly balanced and uniform sound across the entire listening area, more generic, rectangular rooms can have their acoustics greatly improved using fairly general practices, such as bass traps in the vertical corners, absorption at the early reflection points, and diffusion in the rear of the room to keep it sounding "live" and not overly deadened.

And while many people have a significant amount of furniture and decorations in their rooms, just as many have rather bare rooms, not at all unlike the listening room in that video. What made that video such a good example, IMO, is that it was the dedicated listening room of a professional who works in the audio industry. The man had clearly invested in high end speakers and gear, and dedicated not just a room, but one with supposedly "ideal" dimensions, that we frequently laud for supposedly diminishing the effects of standing waves and other bass problems. That isn't a guy who doesn't care about audio. It's a guy who cares, and spent a great deal! But as the video so clearly demonstrates, all of that investment in obtaining the room, and buying the expensive speakers and gear was utterly transformed for the better by just a few thousand dollars worth of acoustic treatments.

My point is, the fellow in the video could have spent hundreds of thousands more on speaker and gear upgrades, chasing audible improvements the way so many people do: by only thinking about the gear! But the biggest improvements were had by spending a fraction of that amount on acoustically treating the room. If he had spent half of his original budget that he spent on just the speakers and gear on acoustic treatments instead, he would have had speakers and gear that cost half as much as what was shown in the video, but they would have sounded better than all of that high end gear with no room treatments. Is his sound quality even better with the high end gear now that the room treatments are in place? Sure. But my point is that, even with a smaller budget, ignoring the room acoustics results in lesser performance and lower value. I'd much rather have that treated room with gear that cost half as much, vs the more expensive gear without the room treatments! I think the video does a wonderful job of demonstrating why I say that! But even now, we see the resistance. Plenty of folks use the same reasoning as ShadyJ to continue without acoustic treatments. I'm just pointing out why, even with the issues of WAF and price, focusing on your room's acoustics and making them a priority, not an afterthought, is very likely the best way to spend your money, vs. focusing on the gear alone.

Anyone can hear it for themselves in that video! If you want to truly improve your sound quality, this is the way to do it! No gear, no matter how expensive, would have made the same, massive improvement in that man's room as the acoustic treatments did. And that's what I'm driving at. The acoustic panels are a vital component of the sound system, not a tweak

 

[anamorphic96]

Great post and it's my mode of thinking these days along with the speakers, and proper placement. I wish more people thought this way. I spent a few hundred on panels for my living room HT. I had previously used an Auralex kit for my old studio apartment. In both rooms they made the biggest difference over any componet upgrade I had ever made aside from speakers. But I guess well treated rooms don't offer much pride of ownership like a big fat amplifier does.

 

[96cobra10101]

I'm lucky enough to have a room thats generic in shape (24x18x9) and dedicated as a home theater (no WAF). I'm extremely curious to see what acoustic panels would do for my room since the only acoustic "enhancements" I have are carpet and a couch. My biggest hold up right now is colors. Has anyone built there own acoustic panels?

 

[FirstReflection]

My biggest hold up right now is colors. Has anyone built there own acoustic panels?

Tom Andry, the associate editor here at Audioholics, built his own panels.

GiK Acoustics sells the insulation and fabric that they use in their own panels. All you would need to source on your own would be the frame.

And Acoustimac sells everything : insulation, fabric, wood frames, and even full DIY kits! If you're even remotely handy, the Acoustimac DIY kits are a fantastic way to save a bit of money and save on shipping!

Of course, you can potentially save even more money by just getting the materials yourself at hardware and fabric stores

Personally, I always recommend going for a dark colour for the panels that will be at the front of the room. A dark colour will help the perceived contrast of your display's image in addition to its sonic benefits. The back of the room is up to you. If you have a dedicated room with a projection setup, then simple, flat black seems like the obvious choice But you can certainly be more creative with your colour choices. I particularly like Acoustimac's large selection of fabrics. The suede options are especially nice. And they even have patterned fabrics if you want something really decorative for much, much less than one of their printed panels.

One trick is to use smaller panels - like the 2' x 2' panels instead of the regular 4' x 2' panels. With the smaller panels, you can create patterns. Combine patterned positions with different colours, and that's another great way to increase the WAF a lot!

 

[3db]

Great post you anti audiophile!!! . I fully endorse room treatments having built two home made absoprtion panels mysel that are placed behind the speakers.

WAF is a real issue with most audio systems because many rooms are the living rooms and or family rooms and the last thing wives want to see are bass traps, diffusers, and absorption panels. *L*

Thanks again for posting.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I don't think anyone should be adding panels on their walls unless they can measure the room response before and after to make sure it is an actual improvement.

 

[twoeyedbob]

I'd love some of these...however as my ht room doubles as a living room...seem's v unlikely
I did however hang a ornate carpet/rug on the wall behind the tv which made quite a bit of difference...my wife thought it was her idea....

Sent from my HTC Vision using Tapatalk 2

 

[Hocky]

I don't think anyone should be adding panels on their walls unless they can measure the room response before and after to make sure it is an actual improvement.

This isn't true at all. I recently helped a friend with a golden ratio, no parallel wall room that sounded TERRIBLE before treatments. A bunch of treatments and some time in the seat to determine relatively optimum locations took the sound from garbage to spectacular, no measurements made through the entire process. Whether you believe it or not, it really does make that big of a difference.

 

[hizzaah]

Good video! Shows the possibilities and improvements that treatments could bring to the table. Might as well add it to your signature as I foresee you referencing it in the future

 

[lsiberian]

While I think treatments can be beneficial. I disagree that 50 percent of the budget should be in them. Excellent speakers are engineered to perform well in a standard living room. Also be careful what you treat. The best place to start is the wall behind your head then the wall behind the speakers. Side reflections aren't a huge deal because of the decay factor. Never treat first order reflections they actually enhance sound. And please don't put up so much treatment that your theater looks terrible.

Rockwool and cloth are cheap. If you get rigid rockwool you don't really need to frame it(though it can be helpful).

 

[FirstReflection]

@Isiberian

Haha, I didn't mean that 50% of your budget should be spent on acoustic treatments regardless of what the budget is...lol. My bad on that, because I used the example of a $2500 total budget and suggesting spending almost half of that on acoustic treatments But, of course, if your budget is $25,000, I wouldn't suggest that you need to spend $12,000 on acoustic treatments! haha. Maybe somewhere in the neighborhood of $3000-$6000 on acoustic treatments if you've got that kind of budget. And it could be considerably more or less depending on your room!

So yeah, my bad on making the price example confusing But my real point is simply that room acoustics, and acoustic treatments should NOT be the afterthought that they are for so many people. They should be right up there on the priority list along with speakers, and the rest of the gear.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

This isn't true at all. I recently helped a friend with a golden ratio, no parallel wall room that sounded TERRIBLE before treatments. A bunch of treatments and some time in the seat to determine relatively optimum locations took the sound from garbage to spectacular, no measurements made through the entire process. Whether you believe it or not, it really does make that big of a difference.

And another forum member also put up a bunch of acoustic panels and he told me that he didn't hear any difference at all. Whether you believe it or not, it really does NOT make a big difference in every case.

It didn't make a big difference for Peter Aczel, Siegfried Linkwitz, Dennis Murphy, etc, either. They believe that carpets, rugs, drapes, curtains, sofas, etc, are just as good. I guess these newbies don't know any better, huh?

 

[FirstReflection]

Just to further explain, and maybe make my stance a little clearer:

imagine a guy who's spent, let's say, $5000 on speakers, $2000 on a pair of subwoofers, $1500 on a receiver, and $500 for players and cables. That's going to be some very nice gear, and this hypothetical person clearly loves good audio and is willing to pay a decent amount of $$$ for it.

Now, if I had been advising this person prior to his purchase, I might have suggesting taking around $2000 - $3000 within that budget, and using it to purchase acoustic treatments and some basic measurement gear, instead. Maybe drop down to $3500 for the speakers, $1600 for the pair of subs, $1200 for the receiver. Something along those lines. Still get great speakers and gear, but allocate a good chunk of the budget for the room treatments.

But there is a second scenario, which I think is even more apropos:

Let's say this hypothetical person already has his $5000 speakers, $2000 subs, $1500 receiver, etc. And now he is looking to improve his sound. I see this sort of situation all the time.

Let's say he's got something in the range of $2000-$3000 to spend now. What I see so often is that guy blowing his whole upgrade budget on an amplifier! Or maybe he spends it to upgrade one or a pair of his speakers, or add more speakers, or something along those lines.

My stance is that he's got great equipment, and where he will gain the most improvement, by far, would be in spending that $2000-$3000 on acoustic treatments. THAT'S what I think the video demonstrates so well! The owner of the room in the video could have spent $5000 - $6000 on a new amp, but instead, he bought what looks to be around $5000 - $6000 worth of acoustic treatments.

There is no way what-so-ever that a new, $5000 amp would have transformed the sound quality in that video to nearly the same extent as the $5000 worth of acoustic treatments did. That is my point here.

And getting back to our hypothetical person, it's the same idea: $2000 - $3000 in upgraded equipment won't off nearly the same improvement or bang-for-buck value as spending that same amount on acoustic treatments.

I'm not saying don't buy nice gear. FAR from it! I'm not saying don't upgrade your gear. I've got upgraditis as bad as anyone! And I'm not saying acoustic treatments are MORE important than getting good speakers.

But I'm saying they're JUST AS important...equal. And especially for someone who has already bought excellent gear, if that person is looking to improve the sound quality further, I can pretty much guarantee that treating the room's acoustics will result in a far greater transformation and improvement than spending the same amount of cash on upgrading the gear even further.

I'm just saying, make the room's acoustics a priority. If you're building a new system from scratch, allocate a decent amount of funds towards acoustic treatments. And if you already have nice gear, look to getting acoustic treatments with your upgrade budget before you go looking for higher priced gear. It's not that the nicer gear won't give you any benefits. It's just that the acoustic treatments will give you more value and improvement for your upgrade budget. Listen to that video.

 

[FirstReflection]

@AcuDefTechGuy

So you're saying, in that video that I posted, you believe the acoustic treatments made no improvement?

Of course not. They obviously did.

I will completely agree that the same improvements could have been made using other materials. I'm not advocating a particular brand or kind of acoustic treatment. Acoustic panels happen to be among the most affordable and easily implemented and predictable. But yes, absolutely, other forms of acoustic treatment, such as thick rugs, wall hangings, plush furniture, irregularly shaped bookcases (as diffusors), etc. can be used instead of panels. But are those things free? No. They still have to be paid for out of your budget, and even more to my point, if you're saying that you're going to have those things in your room anyway, then why not put some thought into them and optimize your selections of furniture and decorations to aid, rather than hinder, your room's acoustics? Choose a plush couch rather than a harder, flatter one with straight lines and acoustically reflective covering. Choose wall hangings instead of posters or artwork with a hard, glass frame. Choose plants with big, sound-scattering leaves, or irregularly shaped bookscases instead of flat, parallel lines.

But more than all of this, what doesn't make a lick of sense is to think of your sound system as being ONLY your gear. That is what I'm trying to get across here. Again, go back to the video, spend as much on gear as you want in that man's room. No amount will improve the sound quality as much as the acoustic treatments did. Could he have improved the acoustics using materials other than what happened to be GiK brand acoustic panels? Certainly! But it would have cost just as much - and potentially quite a bit more. If the aesthetics of those choices would have been worth the price to him, then by all means! But those audible improvements weren't going to happen for free is my point. And no amount of money spent on better speakers or amps would have offered that level of improvement either.

 

[Hocky]

It didn't make a big difference for Peter Aczel, Siegfried Linkwitz, Dennis Murphy, etc, either. They believe that carpets, rugs, drapes, curtains, sofas, etc, are just as good. I guess these newbies don't know any better, huh?

Those carpets, rugs, drapes, curtains, sofas, etc are being used as acoustic treatment, so they're just following suit in a different manner. Take any speaker and put it in any reasonably sized room with only a single chair/couch and an equipment rack and I guarantee it will sound terrible.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Those carpets, rugs, drapes, curtains, sofas, etc are being used as acoustic treatment, so they're just following suit in a different manner. Take any speaker and put it in any reasonably sized room with only a single chair/couch and an equipment rack and I guarantee it will sound terrible.

Oh, I thought you guys were saying to use big acoustic panels. But sure, of course, I believe in using "natural" room treatments.

I definitely believe in using carpets, rugs, curtains, sofas, & pillows as natural room treatments. I guess they do cost a lot of money, but I never think of it in that fashion as part of the HT budget. Oh, no, no, no. They are part of the house budget.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Just watched the video on my PlayBook and the before/after difference was quite noticeable - even through these tiny speakers, especially the vocals. That room took a LOT of treatment though. Good thing it's a dedicated listening room. That level of treatment just wouldn't be practical in most multi-purpose rooms.