Is the significance of room acoustics overrated?


Don't get me wrong as I realize just how important room acoustics are (I think).

However, let me share some recent experiences:

In our previous home, an audio reviewer/columnist evaulated my system. Very positively I might add. Anyway, upon telling him that my family and I were preparing to relocate to the West coast after his 3 hour evaulation, he responded with "good luck trying to find another room with these acoustics." And I knew exactly what he meant.

Well, we found a home that may have had even better room acoustics but it failed the home inspections. I'm still bummed about that one, but it was on to the next...

We settled on another home and it was either the living room or the family room for my listening room. Because of it's isolation from other rooms (very open floor plan) I selected the family room even though the living room had better acoustics and immediately had an electrician install the dedicated lines there. But this family room has no where near the level of acoustics of my previous room.

Although the same basic sonic characteristics where there in the new room, the bass had peaks and valleys like a rollercoaster. And off-and-on over the next 7 months, I'd move the speakers around trying to locate the best position for overall best performance/best compromise.

Lo and behold about a month ago, I located a position in which the bass peaks and valleys have all but disappearded and overall and in some ways the absolute bass control and response as well as the overall presentation is even better than my previous room.

Of course I can't help but wonder what if I had devoted this kind of attention to speaker placement in my previuos room with better acoustics?

But at the same time, I find it difficult to believe that simply relocating the speakers to an 'optimal' location could cause the interactions with the room's poor acoustics could be minimalized to such a degree.

Therefore, I ask:

Aside from ensuring basic room treatments i.e. thick wall-to-wall carpeting and padding and generally good room demensions/symmetry, etc. is not speaker placement far, far more important?

And lastly, I suppose this thread may offer hope for some that there very well be a better speaker placement to cover a multitude of sins in what should be deemed an otherwise acoustically poor room.
stehno

Showing 6 responses by stehno

Newbee, very good points all around. Thanks. Warrenh, I do not necessarily agree with everything you say above or at least not to quite the same degree as you, but I understand where you are coming from.

-IMO
Robm321, based on my experience, I'd have to agree at this point in time that speaker placement takes priority over a room's acoustics.

Unless of course the room's acoustics are just plain horrible.

I would also agree that it is a combination of all ingredients, including speaker and room synergy, etc..

As to the thick wall-to-wall carpeting statement. I thought that was a pretty obvious and popular notion.

If you have a better idea I'm all ears. But as far as I know, the first and potentially biggest reflections come from the floor. And the carpeting helps to prevent any high frequency floor bounce. Not to mention having the two hard parallel surfaces (ceiling and floor). The thicker the better along with a heavy/thick carpet pad.

If you're not into the carpeting thing, then what are you using?

-IMO
Ohlala, stop trying to pretend you are educated beyond your intelligence. Based on your verbiage above and elsewhere, it's quite evident that you already are.

For the last two years you've been like a little butt rash that flares up every three months or so, even though I've no idea who you are.

And now that that's out in the open, I'll address your post above.

Where do you get this "bold conclusion" from? It was a simple obervation. I had one interesting experience that I wanted to share that indicates to me a possible kink in the logic of those that espouse room acoustics over everything else and therefore I posed my question.

But since you bring it up, I perhaps came to some conclusion that room acoustics may not be quite the end-all 80% of a system's performance as some to many may have thought and preached. Or perhaps speaker placement can sometimes substitute for a portion of that 80%. But obviously the final answer is most likely based on the individual's room, system, treatments, speaker placement, and one's listening preferences.

As for my one experience to your vast experiences with room acoustics? College dorm rooms really don't count.

-IMO
Twl, perhaps yours is the more intriguing response. When you said "attempting to place unusal emphasis, or importance, on one part or another can get out of hand."

Maybe that's what was in the back of my mind. Because up 'til now, the most common response for ingredients necessary to aquire good sound has been room acoustics. And with that response I've heard and read too many times that room acoustics account for typically a whopping 80%. And with my previous room's excellent acoustics I agreed.

But now my current room has nowhere near the same level of acoustics, yet speaker placement has more than made up for that deficieincy.

So getting back to your statement, perhaps that room acoustics accounting for 80% of the sonics is the unusual emphasis, importance, or the one part that may have gotten just a bit out of hand?

I mean, couldn't room acoustics account for a still whopping 40 or 50% while speaker placement accounts for the other 40 or 30% ?

-IMO
Robm321, when I said 'wall-to-wall' carpeting I meant only covering the entire flooring. I thought wall-to-wall was kind of a popular term to describe this. Sorry.
Good question. I suppose I picked up the term from seeing real estate / homes for sale ads.