@g_nakamoto We were lent a pair of McIntosh MC501 with the matching pre for at least 12 months some years ago, while the development of a customer's pair of speakers was undertaken.
They sure had some drive, so yeah I'm thinking you're not going to lack energy in your room at all.
I have only got 400 Watts a side and I don't use even close to nearly all of it ever.
@hiendmmoe - have you any thoughts about the varying responses so far?
- ...
- 46 posts total
@OP, there is a lot of nonsense being sprouted here through misunderstanding. Absorption in a room is necessary to reduce the time it takes sound to decay but the absorption needs to work over as wide a bandwidth as possible. If sound is left to decay in an untreated room the result is smeared sound, congestion and loss of detail and nuance. A carpet is, because of its limited thickness, a narrow-band absorber, and if you have wall to wall carpet as I see you do, then you will be absorbing only a limited frequency range and because there is so much carpet there will be information lost, resulting in an imbalanced sound. Successful treatment is achieved by broad-band absorption. @artemus_5 mentions finding hard floor and a rug helped. @fatdaddy2 described a simple experiment which is a good idea. The sheets of plywood will negate some of the damage of wall to wall carpet. I favour a broad-band absorber on the ceiling preferable to carpet as a means of dealing with floor to ceiling absorption. This makes more sense if you consider that the human ear has evolved to allow for floor reflections. |
Great, this is the area in which I need more information in order to make an informed decision. I know that my next move is on the ceiling, and your position of broadband absorption aligns well with what I have been reading. |
- 46 posts total