Modernists Unite, or: saying no to room treatment

What would be the 2-3 things that could and ought to be done to "treat" a room that most anyone can get right without really what they are doing?

Elizabeth,

I wish I still had photos of my old HT room and listening room. These were the result of a "gut" renovation, were starkly modern in design, and thoroughly treated behind the "wall" surfaces. Wall is "", because I used cloth on the upper half and light wood wainscoating on the lower half, with minamilist stainless steel moldings above, below, and in-between. All treatments were hidden behind the cloth.

Looked great, sounded great.

Now my HT room (a converted garage) is a (much cheaper, ah the economy) variant on the same idea as my old one. Cloth upper walls. In my listening room, I deploy colortful treatments on the conventional wall surfaces and use DRC on subwoofers. The HT room looks very nice and the listening room, well....probably not what you're talking about here.

The real point is that careful design (and yes a small to large pile of cash) can get you both form and function.

Marty

PS WAF was not an issue for me either - the listening rooms are/were my space. The HT rooms were driven by my desire to enjoy the environment visually as well as functionally.

04-12-10: Drtmth58
"Truth be told, both Duke and Elizabeth are among the two very most intelligent participants in this forum. They both know what they are talking about, and studiously avoid most of the meaningless jargon that is all too pervasive among audio hobbyists."

Hi Drtmth58, I am sure that I am just as intelligent as Duke and Elizebeth, but I sure do have a different opinion on this subject.

Just do the opposite of what they say, and you will be OK.
(This is where I am supposed to attach one of those smile man avatars.)

Bob
PHP143

Well, I don't think we're answering the right question. In general I agree with Kal because I favor musical REcreation (hearing whats on the disc) over musical creation ( which would occur if the listening room is altering the sound in any meaningful way). I favor "accurate". However, digital correction presents its own problems and over treating rooms does too. A flat response in and of itself may not sound good to any particular listener. The other thing to think about is that some people prefer a colored sound which pleases them. This could come from colored equipment or from the room itself which might always present the music in a certain way which the owner finds pleasing. This leads me to say : If YOU don't like the sound your getting in your room you can improve it with treatment. If you seek "the truth" you can treat the room. If you like the way your particular room makes the music sound who am I to argue with you. Enjoy it and don't worry about it. - Jim

In spite of several decades in this hobby, I won't claim to be an expert on room acoustics (or any other aspect for that matter). This is not false modesty but due to the simple fact that I continue to learn new things almost every day.

So let me offer one example of "room sound". At one time I had four friends who owned the same model speaker as I did. We also owned the same or similar amplifier models. Our source components were not identical but at least similar and included both analog and digital. Yet each one of these systems sounded distinctly different from the others. The most common variable was the rooms. Those differed in size, layout, materials, furnishings, etc. That taught me a valuable lesson that rooms, treatments, and system set up (beginning with speaker placement) must be an important consideration.

Now, one question for Elizabeth. You said "most of the best systems have NO room correction at all". How can you tell they are "the best systems" based on a picture or listing of components?

I agree we should all be free to do as we chose with our systems, but to lump room treatments in the same category as stones and clocks seems to be a little extreme to me.