I've always found that a big rug on the floor if you have hardwood or hard surface floors ,curtains on the window and maybe a tapestry on another wall so you have at least three surfaces in the room with some type of sound absorbing material along with your furniture you're usually good. All that can vary from room to room, no two are usually the same.
Paul, just to let you know I just ordered your hard copy book from Amozon, they let you start reading online & although you are a little older than me after reading several chapters my life back in the day was so much like yours. Love you buddy...
I never thought sound treating would make a big difference. I went to my coworkers house and him and his two sons are audiophiles and do EVERYTHING DIY. He told me it makes a huge difference. I then bought an old pair of Klipsch Hersey's which had enough midrange to part your hair (in my room) I then set up blankets and pillows all around at reflection points and WOW did it make a big difference. Im going to make some homemade acoustic panels soon. I also love your analogy of balance.
You can make any room sound sweet without treatment, proper placement comes first.... And that takes more time then people usually are willing to take. Or they just don't know how to do it right.
Oystein Soreide I agree. I had a horrible spring echo at one end of the room and I got in touch with Gik Acoustics who told me exactly what I needed. The room is not dead but all the zinginess has gone. I wish I had discovered acoustic treatment earlier as no room sounds as good without it.
@@nespressoman The first thing is to but the furniture into the room, and carpets etc. Because it affects the acoustics. Then further treatment must be done after that. Most people doesn't have dedicated room for audio.
I know it's an older video...I'm surprised the audio world can't: 1) scientifically state how to achieve optimal room acoustics, and 2) have speaker manufactures give room treatment suggestions specifically for their speakers. I think smaller speakers require more lively spaces. Big speakers can fill a damped room with life-like sound. Electrostatics, react differently than cones. We talk so much about reducing distortion in the components, yet the distortion introduced by the room is the biggest culprit. Most agree the room is 50% or more of the sound yet it's often an after-thought. Paul says if the room sounds nice to talk, then that's about right for sound reproduction. Why is that? Near field listening gives a glimpse into better room acoustics. Headphones likewise provide insight into room deficiencies. To me these point to a problem that needs addressed.
My recommend... first... make some dirt cheap DIY rockwool absorbing panels and place them at the first reflection points, then listen back and forth until you understand what you are hearing. At this point, if you were experienced you would experiment with those panels until you found the reflections that do the most harm... and treat that. If you are going to measure the room, then you will have data on what you need to fix for the bass, and doing that fix is really complicated/difficult /expensive in some rooms, it is also a super critical area for maintaining the tonal balance as you add stuff. If you have a small room you may find the speakers you have require vast and detailed absorption... you will then need to wake the room back up with diffusers. Every room is different and so are the speakers, and tuning for the type of speakers you have is key, case in point, if you have dipole speakers then using tons of absorption is not likely to be a winning play, but diffusers just might be. If you have B&W speakers you will likely need massive absoptive room treatment to tame the tweeters and serious levels of diffusion to let the mids and highs shine. It's a hard thing to do the first time.... good luck.
Yeah I built some cheap 1x4 frames and just plopped insulation (still in the plastics!) into the boxes then wrapped them in fabric. Works amazing and only cost me $50 or so each to build. Put 4-8 of those in a room in the corners and your mind will be blown. Problem is most people dopnt use enough accoustic treatment to make a difference. It really does take alot.
@@Canadian_Eh_I - Yes, it takes a lot of treatment, or what may seem like a lot of treatment, to get smooth low frequency response. That is why the ceiling and vertical corners are good places for getting acoustic treatment out of the way. Side wall first reflection points usually need some absorption. Yes, it is mind-blowing when the low frequencies are heard and felt with a smooth response curve.
@@rb032682 Yes, my simple and cheap absorber is rockwool (cut to size and depth as needed, and some spray glue to attach cheap fleece sources from Walmart's $2.50 throws. But rockwool alone is not a good bass trapper per se, if not used right it will unevenly remove bass and kill off the sound. Cheers.
hi paul love your video,i build acoustics for rooms and i can give you my basic! 2 cent,becuse we talk about small!!! room in acoustics we have low freq prob,so you need to start with the low freqv absorbtion 20hz-40hz+ determined by the room itself...why?Because each small acoustic room needs to be treated with these frequencies And the multiples of resonance in frequencies, And only then is it worth talking about Different approaches for further treatment,I never went into small room that did not significantly improve by dealing with the low-frequency.
There are 3 parts, pt 1 is the hardest and ultimately crucial, room modes and bass energy decay must be dealt with or the room will never be great, it’s just a fact of physics. Pt 2 is all non direct sound above 100-200 hz must be absorbed or diffused or both, any coherent non direct sound waves reaching the listener is a problem. Again, it’s physics.... pt 3 is... once you have those two parts done.... yes, you will have a room that is kinda dead is hand lacking spark.... this is actually just fine (as long as your work in pots 1&2 is balanced in its effect)...now the killer move is pt 3, this is where you use diffusion to keep sound energy -in specific locations- in order to bring the room back to its proper level of life and to create and shape the whole sound field/ sound stage. The idea is to keep non direct sound energy but as diffuse non coherent wave patterns....thus keeping musical life and mojo while letting the direct sound do the soundstage locations cues etc. beyond those steps every single object the room is made out of and that is in the room needs to be evaluated to make sure it does not have damaging sonic effects and if it does, it needs to be cured.
I think it's overly charitable to say that every opinion in audio comes from a place of sincerity. While I think the vast majority of opinions in audio do indeed originate in a sincerely held personal belief, there are cranks galore in audio who will claim all sorts of nonsense just because they like arguing. I think the bigger issue in audio opinions is that lots of people quickly lose their perspective and focus narrowly on something that's not in balance with the big picture.
My apartment opens up to a good sized living room and right into the dining area beside it a kitchen. Spacious and my low level speakers on the front dining room wall, about 7 ft. I sit maybe 7..8 feet to listen. Also beside left speaker is a 15 for long row of glass with big blinds. Sounds very good to me and with a couple beers, even better. Heck with all these jargon. If it sounds good to me, that's all I want and I've been listening for at least 65 of my 71 years..
What ever you do, do it while music is playing and evaluate each piece as you go so you understand the effect of each piece. That way you will know when the piece is not doing a balanced job or is... if you just go for it all at once you will not be able to sort it out to properly tune it... because the acoustic treatment of a room is all about tuning the setup.
I don't think playing music while you are trying to adjust the room is the best way to do it. Music is dynamic and can change from one second to the next making it very difficult to figure out. You have to find the peaks and voids in your room first. To do this you need to do frequency sweeps, once you find those, then apply the room treatment until you are satisfied with the sound.
@@JuanLega Yes and no. First, I wasn't trying to write a book, which I could on this subject, if I was giving an in depth answer for the serious folks it would include much in the way of measuring etc., but I think you miss or gloss over the reason for my point. First, not just random music, but something you have been listening to for testing, second, as you put it in place you can hear the change happening in real time, put in place, remove it repeat, point is you NEED to know what each piece is doing or you will get hopelessly lost when you have put up 35 pieces and the sound sucks, now what? So you need to hear every piece, especially if it's your first Rodeo.
my issue is that i like really dead sounding rooms, im sure i lack the reflections to make my speakers disappear, and in some types of recordings it would really benefit from some echo. but it has some benefits also, its really silent in here and some types of recordings and music it sounds really crisp.
reflection has nothing to do with transparency. if you want transparency, make sure 1. your speakers don't beam (or don't beam too much). by inspecting the upper crossover frequency of each driver. for EXAMPLE, 2 kHz for woofer. for convenience, i'll write down a table for you to look up at which point each (common) driver size starts beaming significantly. 18" --- 750 Hz 15" --- 900 Hz 12" --- 1.1 kHz 10" --- 1.3 kHz 8" --- 1.6 kHz 6.5" --- 2 kHz 6" --- 2.2 kHz 5.5" --- 2.4 kHz 5" --- 2.7 kHz 4" --- 3.3 kHz 3" --- 4.5 kHz 2" --- 6.7 kHz 1" --- 13 kHz 0.75" --- 18 kHz 0.625 (5/8)" --- 21 kHz 0.5" --- 27 kHz make sure they're crossed over below their beaming frequency. 2. again, inspect the crossover frequency of each driver, the bottom end this time, 100 Hz for woofer for example. make sure they're not too low. low frequencies introduce excursion, excursion introduces intermodulation (the wall of sound), intermodulation destroys transparency. the only driver that should handle all the heavy excursion is the subwoofer. there are a few ways you can minimize intermodulation. 1. as i mentioned above, limit low frequency content on the mains. 2. limit the operating bandwidth of each driver. the wider the frequency range a driver has to handle, the higher intermodulation. a high-order crossover network can help you with this. 4th-order Linkwitz-Riley crossover is the most recommended. there are a few more but these are the most important ones.
I’m a big proponent of diffraction. I’m looking at my living room/listening room now trying to figure out how to get good diffraction without making the room look too strange.
Paul, what I gathered from your video, "How to determine acoustic room treatment," is, if you need room treatments, use them. And if you don't need room treatments, DON'T use them. Did I miss anything? :P Oh, and how do I get an autographed copy of your book?
But then you should talk about your IRS system setup. The tall array of dipoles are producing tons of reflections due to the large number of tweeter, midrange and bass drivers, in addition to their rear reflections (for the mids and tweeters), and then you chose to put zero treatment in the room. This is a great example of one extreme end of the spectrum, although I will take your word for it that the system sounds amazing. Siegfried Linkwitz did the same with his Orion system, deliberately producing rear reflections and using no room treatment, with lots of glass surface in his main listening room. Apparently, there is an appeal to this type of setup.
Would even an average audiophile (if such a person exists!), rather than a professionally involved individual (like Paul or an acoustician), really be able to identify a below-par room unless they've gone to the trouble and expense of hearing a before-and-after comparison (excluding, of course, rooms that are seriously dead or over-reverberant)? My point is whether, for most listeners, room treatment is actually worthwhile.
@William - When you experience a good room you will understand. Given a proper demonstration, most humans can discern a difference in room acoustics, both consciously and sub-consciously.
I had a place in my early years that when the music was playing and you walked by the door which was in the corner of the room the bass was super heavy! That's when I learned about what a bass trap could do for you. I wasn't then nor am I now an audiophile.
Before you move into a new house or apartment and go visit it when it's empty, you see immediately the difference in sound from when it will be when you move in. (Lot of echo there) When you have moved in; hard floor of the living room/dinner room of a condo with plastic vertical blinds in the patio door/s vs thick rugs in the living room/dinner room and thick full length curtains in the patio door/s, if to a lesser extent, will be noticeable by a person with reasonably normal hearing, I think. The sound of the audio system should be then significantly more neutral. I have not made a direct comparison of the two situations in my condo, but the sound of my system is excellent with the thick rugs at my place and I have had compliments about it. I will not remove the rugs to test and confirm the differences (to much hard work...) So I think that simple basic room treatment is worthwhile. The Pareto law says: ''80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes'' Meaning that in anything 20% of the work or means will yield 80% of the results.
But... you never answered to question. 🤷♂️Yeah there are lots of opinions as to the "best" way to handle acoustic treatments, but what's your opinion on it, Paul?
i am pretty sure Paul want enough echo to provide the disappearing speaker trick. i only like echo for music but anything else going on in the room i want dead as a coffin.
I have the impression that that Paul is not a fan of room acoustic treatments. I've seen his videos of his music room, I don't even remember seeing any diffusers or bass traps, and I remember reading that he's avoiding all kinds of room correction softwares like a plague. To each their own I guess.
@@nabildanial00 You haven't been watching carefully enough. Look at the videos he made when preparing for the recent shift in premises. What Paul is not a fan of is _excessive_ use of room treatment (the more is better approach). It's all too easy to go overboard and create a listening environment that's dead rather than alive. Read _99% True_ for some of Paul's stories during the Genesis Speakers era. Room correction software creates the illusion that there's only one correct solution. That doesn't account for psycho-acoustic effects. One of those is that for _most of us_ sounds that arrive at the ear later are perceived as quieter than sounds that arrive first. Microphones make no such distinction.
@Marten Dekker - The topic is "acoustic treatment", not speaker design. In 99.9% of consumer audio systems, what is the one component which has *not* been designed to produce the best, most accurate sound at a given price point? The room. I have confirmed this in more than one room, without bias. 🤣
For 99% of those watching this video, what is the one large component in your listening room which has not been designed to give you the best-sounding audio at a given price? Your room. There are scientific methods to measure a room response. There are scientific methods to determine placement of acoustic treatment. It doesn't necessarily have to be guesswork when treating a room. Check out Acoustic Fields: ruclips.net/video/Kw_znD_5PMM/видео.html
Like www.roomeqwizard.com/ With a name like "Acoustic Fields" one is led to believe that there is some "meat" there..... Sadly all i see is a dude flogging activated charcoal ( at highly inflated prices ) as a panacea to all acoustic problems..... A bit like a magic pill that will solve all your health problems - yeah - right ;-)
@@BogdanWeiss - If it works well, I have no problem with charcoal or foam or cotton wool or mineral wool or glass wool. The effectiveness of any treatment can be measured and compared to others. I have never heard Acoustic Fields make a claim that their products are a "panacea to all acoustic problems".
@@rb032682 Room resonance modes will be energised at multiple locations, depending on where your speakers are & where the listener will be located - the only effective way of absorbing selective frequencies & bandwidth is with tuned Helmholtz resonators ( that are tuned & located accordingly ) there is no material known to man that can magically absorb multiple room nodes from the one absorber location. Can you now see the absurdity of the proposed activated carbon in the one box in one location to treat a whole room ???
Room treatment is in many cases even more important than amplifier/cables/transport, etc. I have personally heard a basic system sound incredible with great room treatment. First of all you have to have a room of certain dimensions. This is dictated by the law of physics, no way around it. For best results you need a 14ft ceiling and 27ftx18ft optimally. Of course this isnt realistic for most people, but are $50k speakers?? THEN you need proper absorption and diffusion. MOST people havent heard a room with great accoustics. The image opens up with pinpoint accuracy and transients improve that 3D holographic sound illusion comes back. And if you already have the space for it you can do it for cheap!!!
"For best results you need a 14ft ceiling and 27ftx18ft optimally." There are plenty who would disagree. 27:18 is 3:2 and that means reinforcement of frequencies in that ratio. The more usual recommendation is the golden ratio ~1.6:1 for minimal reinforcement of particular frequencies.
@@jonathansturm4163 I would say having a space with an extremely low noise floor is also very important. Most dont realize the reason they lose accuracy and imaging is simply due to ambient noise which is often around 30db or higher in most cities, even indoors. Basements sound better :)
OTOH not all music is suited. I'm thoroughly enjoying my "new" Stax earspeakers. Unfortunately, the first piece I played, a perennial favourite "Ein Deutsche Requiem", was severely distorted in the crescendoes. Happily I have replaced that recording with Klemperer's 1962 recording that has recently been remastered and I'm once more a happy camper. I cried with joy during the crescendoes rather than grimacing in pain! I listened to the first two movements last night while SWMBO was out in the garden so I have yet to listen to the soloists through the Stax. They sound great through the speakers. Gotta love Schwartzkopf and Fischer-Dieskau...
@@jonathansturm4163 You should try the RAAL Requisit sr1a. They are as close to a perfect sound transducer as Ive ever seen. Theyre still under the radar but 10 years of R&D went into them and they will be making a big splash eventually
@@motorradmike I purchased mine on 2nd hand on fleabay. It's on the EMI label: EMI Classics - 7243 5 66903 2 5. I just now noticed that "recent" was 20 years ago. Is it really that long ago that it was reviewed in The Gramophone? It is much superior sonically compared to the original vinyl release. As numerous reviewers on Amazon remark, it's a remarkable recording and much better than many made with the technology of 1962. The flaws are minor compared with my more modern digital recording that theoretically was capable of being much better. The remastering is _not_ compression thankfully. The Brahms Requiem is all about dynamic range after all.
@@Canadian_Eh_I - I checked out those headphones on the RAAL website. From their description, they look impressive. Then I saw the price tag............😨😨
@@nasskhan4543 Back in the 1970s I had a mirror over my waterbed (the only one in Hobart, Tasmania). These days I have a mirror over the dining table [sigh].
This guy claims to be an engineer. That claim is made on the back of his book. I'm an engineer. I graduated university with an engineering degree. I have a professional engineer's license. I can't seem to find any evidence of any engineering credential. I've read others claim that he has no credential. He talks like a layperson when talking about technical matters. Why does he feel the need to falsely represent himself? Doing so destroys all credibility.
It is absolutely true I am not a degreed engineer and I have proudly made that clear to anyone interested. You don't need a degree to call yourself an engineer, you need to make a living at engineering. I am not sure where this myth about degrees came from but it's something I've fought about for years. Over the past 4 decades I have personally engineered/designed from the ground up some of the best audio gear in the world. I teach a few classes in analog engineering at the School of Mines in Golden Colorado on occasion as well, I lecture there on entrepreneurship. And no, I don't have a degree as an entrepreneur either. :)
If you were an engineer, you would know that you don't need a degree in engineering to call yourself an engineer. You need a license. Passing yourself off as an engineer to the public without a license is illegal. Your words; "You don't need a degree to call yourself an engineer, you need to make a living at engineering." That's not what the law says.
@@michaelakamatsu Sorry, not sure what you're talking about. There is no such thing as a "license" for a EE. Maybe you're thinking of a different kind of engineer. I have 4 EE's on staff, none have a "license". For EE's that's just plain incorrect.
I've always found that a big rug on the floor if you have hardwood or hard surface floors ,curtains on the window and maybe a tapestry on another wall so you have at least three surfaces in the room with some type of sound absorbing material along with your furniture you're usually good. All that can vary from room to room, no two are usually the same.
Paul, just to let you know I just ordered your hard copy book from Amozon, they let you start reading online & although you are a little older than me after reading several chapters my life back in the day was so much like yours. Love you buddy...
I am enjoying my copy (hard copy) great stories and awesome story telling.
Properly treating your room will yield you the largest gaines in sound quality. Do it!
You are correct. This opinion isnt popular because manufacturers cant make money off of it :(
@@Canadian_Eh_I - Also, it is not an opinion. Which pisses off the mfrs. even more. It is just plain old physics.
@@Canadian_Eh_I #Realtraps check them out on you tube. The guy doesn't like Paul b.t.w. lol.
@@tommyheron464 Did one better and went to a completely headphone system. Now I have $50k+ system equivalent :)
I never thought sound treating would make a big difference. I went to my coworkers house and him and his two sons are audiophiles and do EVERYTHING DIY. He told me it makes a huge difference.
I then bought an old pair of Klipsch Hersey's which had enough midrange to part your hair (in my room)
I then set up blankets and pillows all around at reflection points and WOW did it make a big difference. Im going to make some homemade acoustic panels soon.
I also love your analogy of balance.
Acoustic treatment is the most important thing in a listening room. If you don’t have it, the most expensive Hifi would sound crap.
Yes, but what treatment you have need to be dealt with room for room. There is no right solution for every room. That is why it is so difficult.
You can make any room sound sweet without treatment, proper placement comes first....
And that takes more time then people usually are willing to take. Or they just don't know how to do it right.
Oystein Soreide I agree. I had a horrible spring echo at one end of the room and I got in touch with Gik Acoustics who told me exactly what I needed. The room is not dead but all the zinginess has gone. I wish I had discovered acoustic treatment earlier as no room sounds as good without it.
PROJACKED Placement is important but getting the room sound right in the first place is the first thing anyone should do. Otherwise it’s pointless.
@@nespressoman The first thing is to but the furniture into the room, and carpets etc. Because it affects the acoustics. Then further treatment must be done after that. Most people doesn't have dedicated room for audio.
I know it's an older video...I'm surprised the audio world can't: 1) scientifically state how to achieve optimal room acoustics, and 2) have speaker manufactures give room treatment suggestions specifically for their speakers. I think smaller speakers require more lively spaces. Big speakers can fill a damped room with life-like sound. Electrostatics, react differently than cones. We talk so much about reducing distortion in the components, yet the distortion introduced by the room is the biggest culprit.
Most agree the room is 50% or more of the sound yet it's often an after-thought. Paul says if the room sounds nice to talk, then that's about right for sound reproduction. Why is that?
Near field listening gives a glimpse into better room acoustics. Headphones likewise provide insight into room deficiencies. To me these point to a problem that needs addressed.
Paul for Presiden!
Great advice for our hobby - always.
Greadvice for life and our nation.
Balance.
My recommend... first... make some dirt cheap DIY rockwool absorbing panels and place them at the first reflection points, then listen back and forth until you understand what you are hearing. At this point, if you were experienced you would experiment with those panels until you found the reflections that do the most harm... and treat that.
If you are going to measure the room, then you will have data on what you need to fix for the bass, and doing that fix is really complicated/difficult /expensive in some rooms, it is also a super critical area for maintaining the tonal balance as you add stuff.
If you have a small room you may find the speakers you have require vast and detailed absorption... you will then need to wake the room back up with diffusers.
Every room is different and so are the speakers, and tuning for the type of speakers you have is key, case in point, if you have dipole speakers then using tons of absorption is not likely to be a winning play, but diffusers just might be. If you have B&W speakers you will likely need massive absoptive room treatment to tame the tweeters and serious levels of diffusion to let the mids and highs shine.
It's a hard thing to do the first time.... good luck.
Yeah I built some cheap 1x4 frames and just plopped insulation (still in the plastics!) into the boxes then wrapped them in fabric. Works amazing and only cost me $50 or so each to build. Put 4-8 of those in a room in the corners and your mind will be blown. Problem is most people dopnt use enough accoustic treatment to make a difference. It really does take alot.
Rockwool does make inexpensive and effective absorbers/bass traps.
@@Canadian_Eh_I - Yes, it takes a lot of treatment, or what may seem like a lot of treatment, to get smooth low frequency response. That is why the ceiling and vertical corners are good places for getting acoustic treatment out of the way. Side wall first reflection points usually need some absorption.
Yes, it is mind-blowing when the low frequencies are heard and felt with a smooth response curve.
@@rb032682 Yes, my simple and cheap absorber is rockwool (cut to size and depth as needed, and some spray glue to attach cheap fleece sources from Walmart's $2.50 throws. But rockwool alone is not a good bass trapper per se, if not used right it will unevenly remove bass and kill off the sound. Cheers.
Speaking of diffusion, check out Blackbird Studio C: ruclips.net/video/H1M3oSyVXJ0/видео.html
hi paul love your video,i build acoustics for rooms and i can give you my basic! 2 cent,becuse we talk about small!!! room in acoustics we have low freq prob,so you need to start with the low freqv absorbtion 20hz-40hz+ determined by the room itself...why?Because each small acoustic room needs to be treated with these frequencies And the multiples of resonance in frequencies, And only then is it worth talking about Different approaches for further treatment,I never went into small room that did not significantly improve by dealing with the low-frequency.
@Dor - Agreed. Well said. That has also been my experience.
Thanks, you've saved me many£££ from overdamping . Was going to put sound proofing on all walls/ceiling of my new TV room/conservatory
Very good way to look at it, Thanks for the videos Paul.
Love your channel Paul, best personality on RUclips. Just about to listen to your audiobook. Thanks mate!
Wow. Thank you! Made my Sunday.
LAYZURBEAM!! Lol, reminds me when David letterman would get “Hip-mo-tized” hahaha
There are 3 parts, pt 1 is the hardest and ultimately crucial, room modes and bass energy decay must be dealt with or the room will never be great, it’s just a fact of physics. Pt 2 is all non direct sound above 100-200 hz must be absorbed or diffused or both, any coherent non direct sound waves reaching the listener is a problem. Again, it’s physics.... pt 3 is... once you have those two parts done.... yes, you will have a room that is kinda dead is hand lacking spark.... this is actually just fine (as long as your work in pots 1&2 is balanced in its effect)...now the killer move is pt 3, this is where you use diffusion to keep sound energy -in specific locations- in order to bring the room back to its proper level of life and to create and shape the whole sound field/ sound stage. The idea is to keep non direct sound energy but as diffuse non coherent wave patterns....thus keeping musical life and mojo while letting the direct sound do the soundstage locations cues etc. beyond those steps every single object the room is made out of and that is in the room needs to be evaluated to make sure it does not have damaging sonic effects and if it does, it needs to be cured.
I think it's overly charitable to say that every opinion in audio comes from a place of sincerity. While I think the vast majority of opinions in audio do indeed originate in a sincerely held personal belief, there are cranks galore in audio who will claim all sorts of nonsense just because they like arguing. I think the bigger issue in audio opinions is that lots of people quickly lose their perspective and focus narrowly on something that's not in balance with the big picture.
@Andy - Good points. When it comes to good-sounding audio, the room IS the big picture. The room acoustics affect every sound in the room.
My apartment opens up to a good sized living room and right into the dining area beside it a kitchen. Spacious and my low level speakers on the front dining room wall, about 7 ft. I sit maybe 7..8 feet to listen. Also beside left speaker is a 15 for long row of glass with big blinds. Sounds very good to me and with a couple beers, even better. Heck with all these jargon. If it sounds good to me, that's all I want and I've been listening for at least 65 of my 71 years..
Hey Paul love your videos! Always informative.
This one was not.
@ that's personal
Thanks!
What ever you do, do it while music is playing and evaluate each piece as you go so you understand the effect of each piece. That way you will know when the piece is not doing a balanced job or is... if you just go for it all at once you will not be able to sort it out to properly tune it... because the acoustic treatment of a room is all about tuning the setup.
I don't think playing music while you are trying to adjust the room is the best way to do it. Music is dynamic and can change from one second to the next making it very difficult to figure out. You have to find the peaks and voids in your room first. To do this you need to do frequency sweeps, once you find those, then apply the room treatment until you are satisfied with the sound.
@@JuanLega Yes and no. First, I wasn't trying to write a book, which I could on this subject, if I was giving an in depth answer for the serious folks it would include much in the way of measuring etc., but I think you miss or gloss over the reason for my point. First, not just random music, but something you have been listening to for testing, second, as you put it in place you can hear the change happening in real time, put in place, remove it repeat, point is you NEED to know what each piece is doing or you will get hopelessly lost when you have put up 35 pieces and the sound sucks, now what? So you need to hear every piece, especially if it's your first Rodeo.
my issue is that i like really dead sounding rooms, im sure i lack the reflections to make my speakers disappear, and in some types of recordings it would really benefit from some echo. but it has some benefits also, its really silent in here and some types of recordings and music it sounds really crisp.
I would have yo agree, I would risk 'over' damping to reflextions any day.
reflection has nothing to do with transparency. if you want transparency, make sure
1. your speakers don't beam (or don't beam too much).
by inspecting the upper crossover frequency of each driver. for EXAMPLE, 2 kHz for woofer. for convenience, i'll write down a table for you to look up at which point each (common) driver size starts beaming significantly.
18" --- 750 Hz
15" --- 900 Hz
12" --- 1.1 kHz
10" --- 1.3 kHz
8" --- 1.6 kHz
6.5" --- 2 kHz
6" --- 2.2 kHz
5.5" --- 2.4 kHz
5" --- 2.7 kHz
4" --- 3.3 kHz
3" --- 4.5 kHz
2" --- 6.7 kHz
1" --- 13 kHz
0.75" --- 18 kHz
0.625 (5/8)" --- 21 kHz
0.5" --- 27 kHz
make sure they're crossed over below their beaming frequency.
2. again, inspect the crossover frequency of each driver, the bottom end this time, 100 Hz for woofer for example. make sure they're not too low. low frequencies introduce excursion, excursion introduces intermodulation (the wall of sound), intermodulation destroys transparency. the only driver that should handle all the heavy excursion is the subwoofer.
there are a few ways you can minimize intermodulation.
1. as i mentioned above, limit low frequency content on the mains.
2. limit the operating bandwidth of each driver. the wider the frequency range a driver has to handle, the higher intermodulation. a high-order crossover network can help you with this. 4th-order Linkwitz-Riley crossover is the most recommended.
there are a few more but these are the most important ones.
@@ped-away-g1396 Rather well put, nephew. I don't believe I've seen that table before. Thanks :-)
@@ped-away-g1396 - Cool stuff. Thanks much for the info.
I’m a big proponent of diffraction. I’m looking at my living room/listening room now trying to figure out how to get good diffraction without making the room look too strange.
Love to read your 99% true. I am ordering it today.
Thanks! Let me know what you think if you get a copy.
Paul, what I gathered from your video, "How to determine acoustic room treatment," is, if you need room treatments, use them. And if you don't need room treatments, DON'T use them. Did I miss anything? :P
Oh, and how do I get an autographed copy of your book?
www.psaudio.com/products/99-true/
Most rooms need acoustic treatment.
But then you should talk about your IRS system setup. The tall array of dipoles are producing tons of reflections due to the large number of tweeter, midrange and bass drivers, in addition to their rear reflections (for the mids and tweeters), and then you chose to put zero treatment in the room. This is a great example of one extreme end of the spectrum, although I will take your word for it that the system sounds amazing. Siegfried Linkwitz did the same with his Orion system, deliberately producing rear reflections and using no room treatment, with lots of glass surface in his main listening room. Apparently, there is an appeal to this type of setup.
he has room treatment there ...
3:55 the most important word in the english language is Grace. the _second_ , is *balance*
Would even an average audiophile (if such a person exists!), rather than a professionally involved individual (like Paul or an acoustician), really be able to identify a below-par room unless they've gone to the trouble and expense of hearing a before-and-after comparison (excluding, of course, rooms that are seriously dead or over-reverberant)? My point is whether, for most listeners, room treatment is actually worthwhile.
@William - When you experience a good room you will understand. Given a proper demonstration, most humans can discern a difference in room acoustics, both consciously and sub-consciously.
I had a place in my early years that when the music was playing and you walked by the door which was in the corner of the room the bass was super heavy! That's when I learned about what a bass trap could do for you. I wasn't then nor am I now an audiophile.
Before you move into a new house or apartment and go visit it when it's empty, you see immediately the difference in sound from when it will be when you move in. (Lot of echo there) When you have moved in;
hard floor of the living room/dinner room of a condo with plastic vertical blinds in the patio door/s vs thick rugs in the living room/dinner room and thick full length curtains in the patio door/s, if to a lesser extent, will be noticeable by a person with reasonably normal hearing, I think.
The sound of the audio system should be then significantly more neutral.
I have not made a direct comparison of the two situations in my condo, but the sound of my system is excellent with the thick rugs at my place and I have had compliments about it.
I will not remove the rugs to test and confirm the differences (to much hard work...)
So I think that simple basic room treatment is worthwhile.
The Pareto law says: ''80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes''
Meaning that in anything 20% of the work or means will yield 80% of the results.
But... you never answered to question. 🤷♂️Yeah there are lots of opinions as to the "best" way to handle acoustic treatments, but what's your opinion on it, Paul?
i am pretty sure Paul want enough echo to provide the disappearing speaker trick. i only like echo for music but anything else going on in the room i want dead as a coffin.
I have the impression that that Paul is not a fan of room acoustic treatments. I've seen his videos of his music room, I don't even remember seeing any diffusers or bass traps, and I remember reading that he's avoiding all kinds of room correction softwares like a plague. To each their own I guess.
@@nabildanial00 You haven't been watching carefully enough. Look at the videos he made when preparing for the recent shift in premises. What Paul is not a fan of is _excessive_ use of room treatment (the more is better approach). It's all too easy to go overboard and create a listening environment that's dead rather than alive. Read _99% True_ for some of Paul's stories during the Genesis Speakers era.
Room correction software creates the illusion that there's only one correct solution. That doesn't account for psycho-acoustic effects. One of those is that for _most of us_ sounds that arrive at the ear later are perceived as quieter than sounds that arrive first. Microphones make no such distinction.
he said seek balance in all things, don't over deaden the room.
The truth almost always lies in the middle of all arguments. Conframational bias keeps most of us from excepting the facts.
@Rob - The "truth" is what a scientific measurement says. We're not discussing snake oil, we're discussing physics. Any bias is baseless.
@@rb032682 Scientific evidence is brought and paid for all the time.
@@robw1031 - What you're describing is called "fraud", which is irrelevant.
@Marten Dekker - The topic is "acoustic treatment", not speaker design.
In 99.9% of consumer audio systems, what is the one component which has *not* been designed to produce the best, most accurate sound at a given price point? The room.
I have confirmed this in more than one room, without bias. 🤣
Paul-itician.
The leftist media, does promote a leftist narrative!
Every room has its character, leave its character but fix the issues.
For 99% of those watching this video, what is the one large component in your listening room which has not been designed to give you the best-sounding audio at a given price? Your room.
There are scientific methods to measure a room response. There are scientific methods to determine placement of acoustic treatment. It doesn't necessarily have to be guesswork when treating a room. Check out Acoustic Fields: ruclips.net/video/Kw_znD_5PMM/видео.html
Like www.roomeqwizard.com/ With a name like "Acoustic Fields" one is led to believe that there is some "meat" there..... Sadly all i see is a dude flogging activated charcoal ( at highly inflated prices ) as a panacea to all acoustic problems..... A bit like a magic pill that will solve all your health problems - yeah - right ;-)
@@BogdanWeiss - If it works well, I have no problem with charcoal or foam or cotton wool or mineral wool or glass wool.
The effectiveness of any treatment can be measured and compared to others. I have never heard Acoustic Fields make a claim that their products are a "panacea to all acoustic problems".
@@rb032682 Room resonance modes will be energised at multiple locations, depending on where your speakers are & where the listener will be located - the only effective way of absorbing selective frequencies & bandwidth is with tuned Helmholtz resonators ( that are tuned & located accordingly ) there is no material known to man that can magically absorb multiple room nodes from the one absorber location. Can you now see the absurdity of the proposed activated carbon in the one box in one location to treat a whole room ???
Can you go a giveaway for your book!? Please =)
Room treatment is in many cases even more important than amplifier/cables/transport, etc. I have personally heard a basic system sound incredible with great room treatment. First of all you have to have a room of certain dimensions. This is dictated by the law of physics, no way around it. For best results you need a 14ft ceiling and 27ftx18ft optimally. Of course this isnt realistic for most people, but are $50k speakers?? THEN you need proper absorption and diffusion. MOST people havent heard a room with great accoustics. The image opens up with pinpoint accuracy and transients improve that 3D holographic sound illusion comes back. And if you already have the space for it you can do it for cheap!!!
"For best results you need a 14ft ceiling and 27ftx18ft optimally."
There are plenty who would disagree. 27:18 is 3:2 and that means reinforcement of frequencies in that ratio. The more usual recommendation is the golden ratio ~1.6:1 for minimal reinforcement of particular frequencies.
@@jonathansturm4163 Yes sorry correct. so thats 27x17ish. . pretty close any how.
@@jonathansturm4163 I would say having a space with an extremely low noise floor is also very important. Most dont realize the reason they lose accuracy and imaging is simply due to ambient noise which is often around 30db or higher in most cities, even indoors. Basements sound better :)
@@Canadian_Eh_I Living in a rural area in a house with double-glazing is even better :-)
@@jonathansturm4163 - That seems like a pleasant environment for more than just audio. 😎
Another solution is just use headphones, as they take out the room entirely. Sound better than a $200k system
OTOH not all music is suited. I'm thoroughly enjoying my "new" Stax earspeakers. Unfortunately, the first piece I played, a perennial favourite "Ein Deutsche Requiem", was severely distorted in the crescendoes. Happily I have replaced that recording with Klemperer's 1962 recording that has recently been remastered and I'm once more a happy camper. I cried with joy during the crescendoes rather than grimacing in pain! I listened to the first two movements last night while SWMBO was out in the garden so I have yet to listen to the soloists through the Stax. They sound great through the speakers. Gotta love Schwartzkopf and Fischer-Dieskau...
@@jonathansturm4163 You should try the RAAL Requisit sr1a. They are as close to a perfect sound transducer as Ive ever seen. Theyre still under the radar but 10 years of R&D went into them and they will be making a big splash eventually
Jonathan Sturm, where can I find the remastered album you are speaking of?
@@motorradmike I purchased mine on 2nd hand on fleabay. It's on the EMI label:
EMI Classics - 7243 5 66903 2 5.
I just now noticed that "recent" was 20 years ago. Is it really that long ago that it was reviewed in The Gramophone? It is much superior sonically compared to the original vinyl release. As numerous reviewers on Amazon remark, it's a remarkable recording and much better than many made with the technology of 1962. The flaws are minor compared with my more modern digital recording that theoretically was capable of being much better. The remastering is _not_ compression thankfully. The Brahms Requiem is all about dynamic range after all.
@@Canadian_Eh_I - I checked out those headphones on the RAAL website. From their description, they look impressive. Then I saw the price tag............😨😨
every time paul touchs his ear I feel like its story/bs time.
how did you know ?
Do mirrors on the ceiling help or hurt acoustics? ;o)
Ruins accoustics, improves sex life 😁
@@nasskhan4543 Back in the 1970s I had a mirror over my waterbed (the only one in Hobart, Tasmania). These days I have a mirror over the dining table [sigh].
@@jonathansturm4163 - LOL! 🤣👍😎
Carnival mirrors are best for acoustics!
(sarc)
Caution: Wife Acceptance Factor may vary.
its like Sheldon looking for the acoustic sweetspot in a theatre 😆
I used to do that all the time, except when with a hot female, then the balcony became the sweeter spot. lol
Well that was a waste of time!
Relativism, again :)
Banana Splitbrain lol yup
This guy claims to be an engineer. That claim is made on the back of his book. I'm an engineer. I graduated university with an engineering degree. I have a professional engineer's license. I can't seem to find any evidence of any engineering credential. I've read others claim that he has no credential. He talks like a layperson when talking about technical matters. Why does he feel the need to falsely represent himself? Doing so destroys all credibility.
It is absolutely true I am not a degreed engineer and I have proudly made that clear to anyone interested. You don't need a degree to call yourself an engineer, you need to make a living at engineering. I am not sure where this myth about degrees came from but it's something I've fought about for years. Over the past 4 decades I have personally engineered/designed from the ground up some of the best audio gear in the world. I teach a few classes in analog engineering at the School of Mines in Golden Colorado on occasion as well, I lecture there on entrepreneurship. And no, I don't have a degree as an entrepreneur either. :)
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio So you aren't an engineer, degreed or otherwise, but you call yourself one.
If you were an engineer, you would know that you don't need a degree in engineering to call yourself an engineer. You need a license. Passing yourself off as an engineer to the public without a license is illegal. Your words; "You don't need a degree to call yourself an engineer, you need to make a living at engineering." That's not what the law says.
@@michaelakamatsu I do not have a degree in engineering but I am by definition an engineer. Yes.
@@michaelakamatsu Sorry, not sure what you're talking about. There is no such thing as a "license" for a EE. Maybe you're thinking of a different kind of engineer. I have 4 EE's on staff, none have a "license". For EE's that's just plain incorrect.