Acoustic treatment question: do you agree with Dennis Foley that $46k to $65k is required?

Did a little search on "fake plants." Some really funny replies and results, but not much in the way of confirmation they can help much. https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/fake-plants-behind-speakers-a-good-idea

Thanks, guys. This video is indicating that these ranges are designating the *minimum* amounts one needs to spend to get any real improvement.

I’m trying to read between the lines, here. I suspect that Foley is either (a) tired of dealing with customers not willing to spend much at all or have unreasonable expectations or (b) is trying to acclimate his potential clientele to spending a lot of money with his company. Or both.

Thanks, djones. I'm going to try your suggestion now and see how it measures and sounds.

@bkeske I wasn’t beating up on him. He may cater to high end clients and that’s fine. I took note of this video because it was explicitly aimed at what a minimum budget would require. In other words, this is not a video aimed at movie studios or yacht owners. It was that framing — which he chose — which called the question. I’m just asking it. 

@bkeske

He isn’t recommending that kind of money on a generic product, or speaking in general. Again, I’m sure his products work, the question is, do you want to spend money on it. If not, don’t buy his products. Pretty simple.

Fair enough. I realize that when he talks about "budget" in his video, he’s talking about "budget for my products" rather than "budget for someone wanting to address their bass, midrange etc. issues." Got it.

In eliciting opinions, I’ve learned something. Some here found that going with his approach is worth extra money; others found solutions at other, lower prices.

I am new to shopping for acoustic treatments. I thought that Foley’s company was a competitor to GIK, ATS, etc. (which are "generic" products, in your terms). But now I understand Foley aims at a clientele that wants to pay his prices for his solutions. I misread the intent in his video, which I thought was aimed at a wider audience. I appreciate your comments. Thank you.

Not sure I get your point. 

@eganmedia I very much appreciate hearing from someone with expertise. Thank you for taking the time to comment.

To sweat microscopic details in a room fundamentally poor at reproducing a flat frequency response is sort of a hallmark of the audiophile community and is the reason folks poke fun at it.

This makes a lot of sense to me, and I have seen many on this forum make this point and indicate where a genuine difference could be made. So, not all here are poke-worthy.

In the context of your other sensible remarks, all I can say is this: I do not have a great room, but it’s not terrible. (That’s ok. I’m a college teacher, not a recording/ mix engineer. When it comes to teaching and research tools, I spend what’s necessary on travel, books, journals, bibliography tools, etc. Audio is a hobby so I do not need to spend as if it was my profession. I have no desire to put )

By the use of REW and a lot (lot!) of measuring and listening, I’ve shifted everything in the room to cooperate to be much, much better. At this point, there are a couple of options -- either (a) I realize that my room can never be great, and I do nothing more to it, or (b) I seek out treatment proportionate to my room’s (limited) potential which could make a noticeable impact. I’ve embarked on (b) because other hobbyists have indicated they made improvements which mattered. So finding a company that can address that more limited ambition is my goal and I appreciate your help in helping me refine my options a bit more. 

@brownsfan  I agree about the weirdness of "fiberglassophobia."

For someone who is ostensibly a scientist and/or engineer, this scare tactic (which he dwells on) is very problematic. Clearly, if people believe him, they have to go with his (non-toxic) alternative which, by the way, is supposedly better acoustically as well. And, more profitable for him.

At the end of the day, are his products effective? Are they better? Well, maybe, but either he is honestly misinformed about fiberglass (which speaks to a deficiency of knowledge) OR he is intentionally misinforming others to sell products. Either way, it has a bad odor.

Just a carpet? Um... https://musicstudiodiy.com/use-carpet-acoustic-treatment/

It's true that "There are no guarantees when you hire these guys" so all I'm seeking with my question is which of these guys is better, more reasonably priced, more risky, etc. I think the writing on the wall is pretty clear.

Thanks @wwoodrum for your experiences. I have heard from several experienced people who added treatments early on only to find they didn't do anything. But, as you relate, adding more seemed to pull things into visible (or audible) range and then other work with diffusers, a bass array, etc. brought things home. But, at first, a lot of money for no results.

@wspohn  Yes, having that kind of help is invaluable! Good karma for you!

Thanks for the feedback yyz and pureaudio. Mahgister, I think I've seen your story a few hundred times.

Thank you Erik. Your posts on room acoustics are go to’s for me. 

@schlammorgan What an incredible room and you must be quite handy. Great job. I do not have those skills and I'm also not aiming for these Olympian peaks, so I suppose there are various tiers of accomplishment at which Foley's products and labor are more or less appropriate. My OP was really thinking about how his video was pitched at the kind of room some others have accomplished for much less, not a room like yours. 

Carbon fiber, maybe. Annuities products....hold off.  

But it is not necessary to invest money at all to reap the benefits of acoustic science at least some % of this science improving laws and put them at work with homemade materials and devices using your own ears for sure....

I think this is exactly right, and given what I have made myself and have gotten used or via GIK, I think Foley is really bilking people.

Use my ears...wow. What a revelation.