@kota1 -- thanks for the video--i only watched starting at :49 but it seemed to me the discussion was more pertinent to home theater setup (which you have) rather than 2 channel setup (or 2.1). Can't help but wonder if his "formula" is based on having center and side/back surround speakers in the mix and thus maybe overdone?
As for diffusion v absorption behind speakers as w anything it depends--in my room i have a large window behind my speakers and, therefore, opted for absorption (of high/mids) behind the speakers with a curtain rod and heavy drape and it worked well. When i slide the drape out of the way and play with the the wood venetian blinds of the window (as a diffuser of sorts?) it produces an interesting effect that is not displeasing but seems to de-focus the soundstage.
Someone above said smaller rooms have different challenges than those addressed in the video and are more challenging. I fall into the wolf garcia crowd of just doing a few things (bass trapping), first reflection and aforementioned absorption and then just enjoy the music (although admittedly i measured frequency response in every part of my room first, mainly for speaker placement and knowing where the bass was emphasized--which, surprise, the usual corners)--i only spent three or four hours total and I'm happy. As someone else said above, unless your room is really problematic don't obsess over treatment tweaking.
|
@wyoboy
The setup is the same for both 2 channel and HT, Look at the room kits at is website and you can compare both setups. I have a large windo to the right side of my MLP and I hung a diffusor called an acoustic lens which allows the light to pass through. You can see a pic in my profile system. You will see that the room kits are determined by the size of your room
Here is the layout for 2 channel (they also have HT):
https://www.sonitususa.com/product/studio-acoustical-systems
|
@kota1 I'll check out their site-thanks. Interesting that acoustic lens over the window--is that the squarish thing that seems to be hung over vertical blinds? If so, can't help but wonder if the verticals all by themselves could have acted as an "acoustic lens" similar to the way i played with the blinds on the window behind my speakers. Have you ever removed it and heard the difference ?
Although i only spent a few hours on room treatments i will admit that i started down the rabbit hole by reading Jim Smith's book, "Get Better Sound" and then booked an hourlong phone session with him b/c i had several questions on material in the book as well as idiosyncrasies in my room with doors--he was quite helpful but also urged me not to obsess beyond dealing with a few important things pertaining to my room.
|
@wyoboy
Yes, the acoustic lens is the squarish thing. I had the vertical blinds long before I had the acoustic lens diffusor, they don’t do anything. I got the idea to hang it from a recording studio that had the same issue and had the acoustic lens hanging and it did the trick. You'll see in the pics I also have a "cloud" of acoustic lens hanging at the rear of the room below my PJ. All I did was follow Anthony Grimani's acoustic recipe. Here is a link to the various diffusors I use in my setup:
https://www.oeler.com/pdfs/Sustain-Data-Sheet.pdf
|
@kota1 That window of mine behind my speakers has been my biggest worry in the room but i went the other route--electing to absorb the sound b/c i was afraid of the highs being emphasized--never occurred to me to go the diffusion route--how much did that "cloud" diffuser cost? I might have to try that as it looks about as big as my window.
Found it interesting that Sonitus feels a mixing room is the same as a 2 channel listening room--might have to ponder that -- seems plausible unless the mixing room is also where the player(s) are and then you would think they would generally go for diffusion to mix into the recording rather than absorption to tame reflections.
|
|
@pedroeb
“ Perhaps I'm a purist. I want to hear the recording the way it was produced and intended to be heard.“
In a recording / production studio invariably packed with wall to ceiling room correction treatments you mean ?
|
@tsushima1 Good point. It's difficult to tell what was "intended" b/c so many recordings are in the studio and then what was 'intended" is up to the engineer--and if the band/artist doesn't like it then you get later remasters if the artist becomes important enough. But @pedroeb has a point with live music and when i approached room treatment it was from that perspective--tame some room issues b/c our rooms are never as big as even a small venue and there are reflections and mostly bass issues that have to be dealt with.
|
Going back to the original discussion…a follow up…
Got the first pair of Range Limiter TriTraps. Replaced a pair of 244s that were used as bass traps with Tri Traps. Moved the 244s to the first reflection points on side walls. There’s a very nice improvement in bass definition, texture and details. I’m also hearing better clarity in the mids and highs and I suspect it is due to the way the tri traps mitigate standing waves.
GIK ships out as they manufacture the panels. Still pending - two more range limited tri traps for the upper half if the wall, two more 244s that will cover the first reflections on the sides and allow me to hang the existing pair of 244s on the ceiling.
I’ll post more updates as I introduce additional panels.
|
So the best combo seems to be the corner tri traps(range limited) and the 244 panels behind the speakers with 242 treating first reflections on the sides.
Cloud/ceiling panels on the way. Will post an update once installed.
Updated system photos.
|
I’m considering Planar speakers. Any recommendations as to room treatment? Right now, with my Focal Sopra 2's I have ASC bass tube traps in the corners and Stillpoints Aperture ll’s in the center, 1st and 2nd reflection points.
I know Planars will have different room acoustic requirements, any help in that regard would be appreciated.
ozzy
|
@ozzy - I'd recommend trying the planar speakers with your current room acoustics setup to start with and see what you think. I've found that I prefer diffusors behind my dipole speakers without any absorption, but every room is different and some people have found they prefer absorbing the much of the backwave.
After getting them set up, I'd try removing the Stillpoint panels behind the speakers and seeing if you like the sound better. If so, this probably points to switching to pure diffusors.
|
jaytor,
Thanks, some good advice. Should I also remove the ASC tube traps?
What type of diffusors do you recommend?
ozzy
|
@ozzy - I'd leave the tube traps in the corners. I like the ATS QRDs. I wrapped these with Guilford of Maine cloth and they look quite nice, but you might prefer the wood look. See my virtual system page to see how they look with cloth wrap. I have 4ft wide floor to ceiling diffusors behind the speakers.
I think the Vicoustic Multifusors are also pretty nice if you prefer the look. These are deep enough to provide fairly wide band diffusion.
|
jaytor,
Thank you, you have been very helpful.
ozzy
|
I’ve heard a lot of ASC tube traps at shows, many of which set up by ASC, and while effective, at least in my experience they have a kind of "sound" to them. They turn a room into 1 note bass. Like all the music sounds the same in the bass.
I’ve not had that issue with other bass traps, and your mileage may vary.
|
erik_squires,
I just have always had them in the corners of my room. It's a basement system so I thought they would be appropriate.
So, you don't think they would be good then with Planar speakers?
ozzy
|
Hi OP,
I think bass traps aare great. My concern is specific to ASC tube traps that when I heard them they seemed to impart a very specific character to the bass, which traps should not do.
As I went from room to room, the rooms treated by ASC with tube traps all sounded the same, in a bad way. Like no matter what music played the drums sounded EXACTLY the same.
Imagine Duran Duran and a symphony orchestra sounding like they played the same drums. Hopefully you don’t suffer this issue.
|
@ozzy - are you planning to use subwoofers with your planars? The bass generated by dipole speakers is a lot different than a typical box speaker since it doesn't pressurize the room like a box speaker. In my opinion, this results in more natural sounding, and very nuanced bass.
A dipole speaker will have nulls in the low bass response to the sides of the panels since the front and rear waves cancel at that point, so the side to side and floor to ceiling room modes are not excited the way they are with box speakers.
I am using DIY bass traps that are similar in construction to the Tube Traps and I have found the bass to be very articulate and natural sounding. But in my room with my system (dipole woofers that reach down to below 20Hz), I haven't found that the bass traps make all that much difference. They do smooth out the bass a touch, but it's a fairly subtle effect. Using REW to measure the room response, I don't see a huge difference (although the response is a bit smoother with the bass traps).
It's possible (maybe even likely) that the ASC tube traps work a bit differently than my DIY solution, but I'd give them a try before making any decisions to change things.
|
erik, jaytor,
Thank you for the help. The planar speakers that I am thinking of getting claims they go very deep and do not require subs. But I question that..
And the dealer recommends not using the ASC tube traps. He claims they will absorb too much.
I do have (4) JL F-113 subs in the room.
ozzy
|
JL makes great subs, in particular the room correction is outstanding.
Anytime you work with bass traps or any absorber you are changing the tonal balance somewhat. Excess bass trapping makes speakers sound lean, while an excess of reflections make the system sound bright. Tuning a room is a balancing act.
Also, check out the AM Acoustics room mode simulator. Try to keep your speakers and listening location away from the lowest room modes if possible. That is a great first pass at tuning your room.
|
I like these GIK Tri Traps with range limiter so far. Didn’t suck up the bass. Just improved its definition. Ozzy may be these will work with the planars. Worth looking into.
|
audphile1.
Here is what is described on the GIK website about the GIK Tri Traps.
"Effectively designed to absorb more low end, but also does an excellent job of absorbing the high end, creating smooth sound absorption from 50 Hz to 5000 Hz."
Based on this description and what the dealer claims, these would also not work well with the Planar speakers.
ozzy
|
@ozzy that’s regular tri traps. Ones I was referring to and what I bought were with range limiter…Based on my listening tests, the description on GIK site is accurate
- RANGE LIMITER – with a membrane, bass traps absorb even lower frequencies while the membrane has less effect absorbing upper frequencies
The range limiter is an option you can select when ordering.
|
