Do bass traps produce noticeable audible difference? - Page 7 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!



Forum Jump: 
 12Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 233 Old 03-12-2013, 10:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 4,579
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee 
Your explanation of this example is incorrect, regardless of the outcome of an experiment with reverberation.
Yeah, I think this point has been lost in the back and forth. I follow your reasoning and it seems intact. Amir's explanation of the particular example is incorrect, even if the impact of late reflections on intelligibility he describes is correct.

Both things can be true at the same time. Thanks for the interesting explanation. Language was never my strong suit. smile.gif

Bigus is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 233 Old 03-13-2013, 12:56 PM
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 19,042
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiophilesavant View Post

Do you have a cite to the field experience to which you are referring.
Sure. There was one in the same page you posted the question in! smile.gif http://www.avsforum.com/t/1453370/do-bass-traps-produce-noticeable-audible-difference/150#post_23053784. From Nyal and Jeff's paper referenced within:

"D: Midrange Decay Times T20, T30, T60 between 0.2 and 0.5s"

Unfortunately the other references I have are from presentations by and discussions with major industry experts which are not in public domain. I did some quick looking and found a few references you can access. If you search I am sure you will find more:

Dennis Erskine: http://www.avsforum.com/t/332289/rt60-what-is-a-good-value#post_2993755:
"I try to keep it [RT60] in the range of .35 to .40

Dr. Toole in his excellent book, Sound Reproduction, Loudspeakers and Rooms: http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Acoustics-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers/dp/0240520092/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363204226&sr=8-1&keywords=toole+sound+reproduction

”The only reason to measure RT in a small room is to be certain that it is not excessively high (over about 0.5 s) to preserve high speech intelligibility or low (under about 0.2 s) to avoid oppressive “deadness.”

EBU 3276 standard: Listening conditions for the assessment of sound programme material: monophonic and two–channel stereophonic

”The reverberation time is an important characteristic of the reverberation field; it is defined as the time taken for the sound to decay to 60 dB below the initial level. It is usually measured over the range from 5 dB to at least 25 dB below the initial value. The decay time of the measuring instrument and the filters should be shorter than the decay time of the reverberation field. The reverberation time should be measured in the listening room with 1/3rd octave filtering [1] using the listening loudspeakers as the sound sources.

Reverberation time is frequency–dependent. The nominal value, Tm, is the average of the measured reverberation times in the 1/3–octave bands from 200 Hz to 4 kHz.

The nominal reverberation time, Tm, should lie in the range: 0.2 < Tm < 0.4 s”


ITU-R BS.1116-1 standard: METHODS FOR THE SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF SMALL IMPAIRMENTS IN AUDIO SYSTEMS INCLUDING MULTICHANNEL SOUND SYSTEMS

” 8.2.3.1 Reverberation time
The average value of reverberation, Tm, measured over the frequency range 200 Hz to 4 kHz should be:
Tm = 0,25 (V / V0)^1/3 s where:
V: volume of room
V0 : reference volume of 100 m3”


100 m^3 is ~3,500 cubic feet. For that, you would get 0.25. Since speech intelligibility improves down to 0.1 seconds or so, and BS 1116 is designed for testing such things as speech codecs, they err more on the side of being dead, i.e. lower RT60 times.


Hope this suffices.
amirm is offline  
post #183 of 233 Old 03-13-2013, 01:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: New Milford, CT, USA
Posts: 6,183
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 260 Post(s)
Liked: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post

I don't know what one could tell in the presence of reverberation

This is actually pretty easy to test for yourself using just a microphone and a few basic audio tools.
Quote:
I am confident that if you operated on recordings to snip away the final consonant portions of "cat" and "cab", so the consonants were entirely absent from the sound, in the absence of reverberation, listeners would be able to distinguish the two correctly.

This is even easier to test. It's obvious that you're interested in this stuff, so I suggest downloading one of the popular freeware audio editors (if you don't have such already) and do some experiments. It's a lot of fun! I can't see how anyone could distinguish cat versus cab if the last part was edited out, though I never actually tested that. However, it's well known that it's difficult to distinguish a violin from a flute if the initial transient is removed. Also, the McGuirk Effect shows that knowing what we think we're hearing is easily compromised:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0

This not exactly the same as cat versus cab, but it's related.

--Ethan
Ethan Winer is offline  
post #184 of 233 Old 03-13-2013, 02:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 4,012
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 694 Post(s)
Liked: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post

It's a lot of fun! I can't see how anyone could distinguish cat versus cab if the last part was edited out, though I never actually tested that.
I'm sure it would be fun for someone with an empirical bent. That's not me, though. Anyhow, the relevant facts are well known.

Your intuition about "cat"/"cab" is not surprising, because not only is the difference made in the final consonants in conventional English spelling, but also in the phonemic forms of these English words. The phonemic form of a word is a theoretical construct that represents the way a pronunciation is perceived, and here, the pronunciations are perceived by English speakers as differing in the final consonant. But this doesn't make it a true fact about the actual pronunciations as they can be measured by instruments. In this case, it turns out to be more false than true.

It's not that you can't make a distinction at all between the final "t"/"b" if you work at it, but rather that you don't need to. In casual conversation, final stops "b"/"d"/"g" are often said without voicing (a natural tendency that is carried further in German), and those plus "p"/"t"/"k" are often said without a burst of air at the end, a "release", that can carry audible information about the difference among labial/alveolar/velar sounds.

Once these very common phonetic changes are made to "cat"/"cab", there is no way in principle of distinguishing these words by listening to the final consonants, because there is no sound there at all. After the end of the vowel, no air is passing through either the nose or the mouth (since by hypothesis we're considering a pronunciation with "b" devoiced and with no releases at the end), so there is no way to make noise during the articulation of the consonants.

Yet English speakers have no trouble at all "hearing" the "t"/"b" at the end, even though there may be no sound there at all. It's surprising.

Greg Lee
GregLee is offline  
post #185 of 233 Old 03-15-2013, 10:02 AM
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 19,042
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post

Your explanation of this example is incorrect, regardless of the outcome of an experiment with reverberation. I am confident that if you operated on recordings to snip away the final consonant portions of "cat" and "cab", so the consonants were entirely absent from the sound, in the absence of reverberation, listeners would be able to distinguish the two correctly.
In the absence of reverberations? That is like me saying in a car crash your seat belt can help reduce injury and you disagree by prefacing: “putting aside an accident, the seat belts can’t reduce injury!” biggrin.gif I will take on your test but I really find it surprising that you want to keep arguing about a point that is absent the condition all of us care about: real sounds in real rooms (with reverberations).

Experiment
I recorded the word ”cat” on my laptop and then chopped off the ending consonant as instructed. This is the resulting file. Please take a listen and see if you can still tell it is cat or not: http://www.**************.com/Downloads/RTSpeechTests/foo.wav

Not wanting to wait for you all to vote smile.gif, I ran the test blind by my three family members: my wife, and two college going sons. I asked them what word was being played using headphones with no other hints whatsoever. All three without hesitation said “cat.” I also tested myself sighted and heard “cat.” I then emailed the link to someone and their vote (with previous knowledge of this argument) was that he could not tell. So the score is 4.5 in favor of Greg’s argument, and only 0.5 in favor of mine. Oh boy…. smile.gif

But Greg has a serious problem on his hands because the word I truncated was not cat but cab!!! biggrin.gif Here is the original file before truncation: http://www.**************.com/Downloads/RTSpeechTests/cab.wav

Now the scores are 4.5 in my favor and Greg is left with 0.5. tongue.gif Seriously, it should be abundantly clear that the ending consonant was playing an important role and taking it out seriously damaged our discrimination between the two words – precisely the reason I picked that word pair.

Here is the really fascinating part: with full knowledge of what I just explained, i.e. biasing you to vote the right way, listen to the truncated clip again. I bet if you let yourself hear it, you may still perceive the word incorrectly as “cat”!!! The ambiguity is so strong that your logical mind cannot override it all the time. I created the darn clip and even I am not immune to this: I can easily convince myself either word is being said. There is also a lesson here with respect to reliability of our audio perceptions, issues with sighted testing. But we digress.

It goes without saying that you can try to chop off the word in a different place and the outcome may be different. That fact actually indicates that the test as proposed is faulty and runs against simple rules of linguistics. Namely the fact that the transition from vowel to consonant is smooth and hence there is no clear break point where you can separate the consonant. For this reason, formal research in this area tends to avoid words with formant transition.

Discussion and Further Research
Greg in his last post puts forward that since we are able to understand a speaker even if he truncates the consonants, it must therefore be the case that the rest of the word was a complete predictor of it. While the premise of what he says is true, the conclusion is overly broad and not supported. Our comprehension is better than it should be because our communication channel has fair amount of redundancy if you include the full set of information being conveyed. If I am holding a cat and try to hand it to you while saying “take the ca” without the ending “t,” you still understand it. That is not because the “ca” led you to think I said “cat” but because of visual cue of me offering you the cat. I could even skip the word cat and you would still understand what I am saying.

Sure, if you heard “ca”, you would know I am not saying “dog” so it is helpful that way but it is not a reliable predictor.

We have many such clues from lips moving, to context, to people’s expressions, etc. It is this collective set of hints that let us understand chopped off words. Such hints help us understand speech very well even when as much as 20% is lost/not heard! Unless all of these factors are taken out, you can’t conclude cause and effect as Greg has attempted. The proof point is simply insufficient to make this case.

Note also that when someone teaches linguistics at school, the focus is on elementary research devoid of real world conditions we face. Very clean voices, recorded well and listened to in quiet, non-reverberant spaces are used for example. Such is not the case for us. Dialog in movies for example is rarely without background music, noises, special effects, etc. Likewise, if you listen in multi-function spaces, noises from everyday living and adjacent spaces help reduce our effective signal noise ratio. Now add to it accents, not being a native speaker, getting older with less than perfect hearing, etc. and you see how what we face is a degraded speech comprehension environment. This is why it is important to design our listening spaces such that they don’t add to the problem.

Going back to our topic of interest, room reverberations are a form of “self-noise” as they raise the residual sound level in the room, and therefore, degrade any component of speech which plays at levels that are similar or lower than it. As I post before, research shows that the most damaging aspect here is with regards to consonants. Vowels in contrast tend to not suffer nearly as much. This factor so important that a specific metric was created for it called ALcons (Articulation Loss of Consonants), created by research that Peutz performed in 1970s as summarized in this excellent AES paper, What You Specify Is What You Get (part 1):

”With Articulation Loss of Consonants (ALcons) only the wrongly understood consonants are counted. Peutz found that for speech in rooms the vowels are much easier understood than consonants and hence the loss of consonants are the deciding factor in speech intelligibility. ALcons is expressed in %. Under perfect conditions (speech direct on headphone) a combination of a very good speaker and a very good listener will have an ALcons of 2.5%. In excellent room acoustical conditions they can have on top of that 5% ALcons or less. An extra 5% loss is still considered as good and another 5% extra loss is still considered fair and sufficient for most messages. The initial 2.5% is considered the zero correction or proficiency factor. Which target to set for a certain situation depends on the proficiency (to be expected) of the talker and the listener.”

Computing %ALcons for my theater example which had an RT of 0.7 is 9% which is outside of the recommended range of <7%. Recall that our recommendation for RT60 was to not exceed 0.5. We exceeded that in my theater and the result is higher potential for loss for consonant comprehension.

For grins, I computed the %ALcons for Ethan’s garage and got a whopping 26%!!! eek.gif It probably makes for great pipe organ music but don’t try to have a kid’s play in there smile.gif.

Here is a very nice visualization of the effect of noise and reverberation on speech by Professor Boothroyd, of SDSU based on a model created from listening tests:

i-MrZXTSj-L.png

There are a number of graphs there. One is for intelligibility of “CVC” constructs which stands for consonant-vowel-consonant words – like my example of cat and cab. The other two are for word recognition in easy and difficult sentences which is yet another vector/metric of comprehension (remember my example of “take the cab” or “take the cat:”).

The top left quadrant is a quiet room with reasonable reverberation of 0.5. The Quadrant on the right keeps the room very quiet but ups the reverberations to around what my living room is at around 1.5. There we notice a sharp drop in comprehension of words even in easy sentences. Indeed the result is pretty similar to bottom left quadrant where we keep the reverberation low but raise the noise floor from 35 db to 60 db. Put another way, upping the RT60 time resulting in a whopping loss of 25 dB in our signal to noise ratio!

Of course all hell breaks loose when we combine noise with high reverberation times in the right bottom quadrant. Note again that we have the equiv. of “noise” in our movie content with respect to other background sounds. You can try to sit closer to the source to compensate as the graph represents but that won’t change the noise level since our “noise” can be in the content.

Bringing the lesson home, listen to this “convolution reverb” of my cat-cab example. If you don’t know what that phrase means, convolution reverb is a process by which we profile a room, in this case an “empty living room” using an impulse response and then by multiplying (convolving) that with any audio clip, we can make it as if it were in the room we profiled. The accuracy is not perfect and depends on how good the impulse response is but is close enough for this exercise. Here is the file with that reverb added to it:

http://www.**************.com/Downloads/RTSpeechTests/cab-cat-repeated-Reverb.wav

You likely hear mix of “cat” and “cab”, right? If not, listen again.

Guess what? I only said “cab” in that clip! Indeed it is the word “cab” in my last example simply concatenated four times:

http://www.**************.com/Downloads/RTSpeechTests/cab-cat-repeated.wav

Listen to how much clearer it is without the high reverberations of that empty room applied to it. Once more with full knowledge listen to the reverb version and I bet you can still hear “cat” in it! This strange brain we have smile.gif.

What does it mean to you
There is uncanny resemblance between this argument and the last. As with the concept of reverberations in the room, what is being quoted from textbooks is not wrong. It simply is misapplied to the topic at hand. How do we know that? Well, we confirm our understanding by actually performing the test Greg suggested. If the results agree, then we know we understood the science well. It didn't in this case. It is also critical that we triangulate our knowledge by reading more than one text to make sure we are not applying what we have learned to a broader situation as occurred here.

With respect to what to do in your room, nothing has changed: if you have difficulty understanding speech in movies for example, one factor may be an overly “live” room. Measure RT60 and look at mid-frequencies. If it is above our target range of 0.2 to 0.5, you need to put additional absorption in the room. Such absorption can be ordinary furnishings such as a carpet on the floor or dedicated products. Location of the absorber is not critical but if given a chance, combine with control of other acoustic issues such as floor bounce (i.e. put carpet on the floor). Otherwise, you may wind up with too much absorption when the job is done.

Note that there are other causes for speech intelligibility such as poorly recorded content, too little early reflections, poorly designed center speakers, and hearing loss. If your room is already in that target RT range, especially if it is at the lower end of that scale, then the problem is one of these.

Edit: someone please teach me how to spell right. biggrin.gif
amirm is offline  
post #186 of 233 Old 03-15-2013, 10:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 4,012
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 694 Post(s)
Liked: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Experiment
I recorded the word ”cat” on my laptop and then chopped off the ending consonant as instructed. This is the resulting file. Please take a listen and see if you can still tell it is cat or not: http://www.**************.com/Downloads/RTSpeechTests/foo.wav
I couldn't tell, trying to answer this exact question. However, if asked what word it sounded like, I'd have said "cap".

Reading on and listening to your cab.wav, I wondered if you might have clipped too much off the end of cab.wav to get foo.wav, removing the last part of the vowel as well as the final consonant. In cab.wav, I could hear a falling pitch toward the end of the vowel which seemed to be missing in foo.wav.

Actually, as I recall, what I said earlier was that I was confident people would be able to hear the difference between "cat" and "cab" with the final consonants removed. That is not exactly what your experiment is testing. And such experiments are usually done putting the test words in a frame that is more like what could occur in natural speech.

It's great that you're putting this all to the test.

Greg Lee
GregLee is offline  
post #187 of 233 Old 03-15-2013, 12:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: New Milford, CT, USA
Posts: 6,183
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 260 Post(s)
Liked: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post

if asked what word it sounded like, I'd have said "cap".

rofl3dbig.gif
Quote:
It's great that you're putting this all to the test.

Yes! I wish more people would test the stuff they argue about rather than rattle on for weeks. biggrin.gif

(I don't mean you Greg, but rather others who hold strong beliefs that could be disproved in two minutes with a proper test.)

--Ethan
Ethan Winer is offline  
post #188 of 233 Old 03-15-2013, 04:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 4,579
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 177
Did amir just become an overnight expert in yet another field? I'll never understand why someone would speak as if from a position if authority after a night of Googling.

But its an interesting topic. I'll listen to the clips at work later.

Bigus is offline  
post #189 of 233 Old 03-15-2013, 04:25 PM
Advanced Member
 
terry j's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 871
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 14
why is the default position whenever amir does a 'body of work', as in his last post for example, to criticise and or demean? There seems to always be attributed to it some sort of ulterior motive.

I mean I don't know the guy at all, maybe he DOES only do it to 'win an argument' because he is pathologically incapable of being in error, but maybe, just maybe, he has an interest and is willing to investigate?

Agree or disagree, view it rationally or with bias as a result of personal feelings toward him, but thank god that we move away from armchair theorising. ****,. we lambast the audiofool who will argue for twenty pages about how dbts or their results in no way show that for most (amps/people/situations) amps are not that different, we urge them to shut the fvck up and simply do the damned test. Then they might have an inkling of what is being discussed.

Yet, when amir does it (gets off his arse and tests something, which most of us don't do) we become snide.
terry j is offline  
post #190 of 233 Old 03-15-2013, 10:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 4,579
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j View Post

why is the default position whenever amir does a 'body of work', as in his last post for example, to criticise and or demean? There seems to always be attributed to it some sort of ulterior motive.

terry, it's called "tone." There's a way to say things, and a way not to say them. The transmission of facts and message may be essentially the same, but the reception can be drastically different. I have tried to make this point to people like dragonfyr and localhost as well, who have gobs of knowledge and experience to share, if only others were willing to listen.
Quote:
I mean I don't know the guy at all, maybe he DOES only do it to 'win an argument' because he is pathologically incapable of being in error, but maybe, just maybe, he has an interest and is willing to investigate?
The two are not mutually exclusive. I have no doubt that Amir likes to help people, and it is commendable the effort he will put into researching a topic in order to "share" information. It is also no doubt that his "sharing" often becomes "preaching" and quite defensive if anyone questions a single word he has written.

Bigus is offline  
post #191 of 233 Old 03-16-2013, 04:18 PM
Advanced Member
 
terry j's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 871
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 14
thanks bigus..you got me at a disadvantage as I don't know your name, unless bigus is your given name and your surname is the same as on The Life of Brian? biggrin.gif

Tone is a good word, esp in an audio forum no? And as we all know, one persons tone is another's horrid noisy mess haha.

Anyway, I am certain you have the point I was making, all too often lingering upsets or past disputes colour the reception. When that occurs the baby is often thrown out with the water.

It worsens when the pack mentality kicks in tho.

cheers
terry j is offline  
post #192 of 233 Old 07-20-2015, 12:46 AM
Senior Member
 
jaychatbonneau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 129 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/1453370/do-bass-traps-produce-noticeable-audible-difference/30#post_22985309" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>GIK Acoustics</strong> <a href="/t/1453370/do-bass-traps-produce-noticeable-audible-difference/30#post_22985309"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif"></a><br><br>
Ethan ... why you persist to argue that what you hear is reverb against his definition</div>
</div>
<br>
I'm not convinced his "definition" is correct. Definitions can also change over time. I spent a good hour researching this, and found nothing to refute my opinion of what constitutes reverb. I might be mistaken! But so far all I've seen from Local is "you're wrong" with nothing to back it up but his say-so.<br><br>
--Ethan
Ethan and friends,

I am about to buy a big order of your Real Traps. My room is T-shaped and the cavities that form the top part of the T are not symmetrical. What advice can you give me on treating the cavities and placing my subwoofers? FYI I have thick velvet curtains covering the cavities in order to keep out light; I presume they will help with keeping high-frequency echoes from coming out.

I either plan to place one subwoofer in the front center and another in the back center or put two woofers up front (both equidistanct from the center channel) and two woofers in the back (equidistant from the center of the wall).

In the rectangular portion of my room, inside the curtains, I plan to treat teach of the four wall-ceiling corners with one Mini-Trap, put four Mini-Traps on the ceiling, place two Mondo Traps on the front wall just above the screen, one corner Mondo Trap in the front left corner up front, one Micro-Trap on each of the right and left walls below the surrounds, and two microtraps on the rear wall. I will also be using four PrimaCoustic triangular traps at the wall-ceiling-wall junctions. I can't put a trap in the rear left corner wall-to wall junction due to a door. The right front corner is behind one of the curtains I described and it is a wall-window corner. That window takes up the entire wall it is on. It is covered with venetian blinds. I have no idea what to put in the corner.

Please remember that my walls and ceiling are all solid concrete.

Any advice would be appreciated. I will be calling James on Wednesday morning to finalize my order. Please let me know if I am on the right track.

Thanks!

Last edited by jaychatbonneau; 07-20-2015 at 12:53 AM.
jaychatbonneau is offline  
post #193 of 233 Old 07-20-2015, 08:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: New Milford, CT, USA
Posts: 6,183
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 260 Post(s)
Liked: 343
You're probably on the right track, but without photos or a drawing it's difficult to say for sure. For example, are the speakers at the top or the bottom of the T? Do you have digital camera or phone camera? Best is to email 2-3 photos to Jim before you call him, so he can see exactly what is where in the room.

--Ethan
Ethan Winer is offline  
post #194 of 233 Old 12-21-2015, 05:29 PM
Member
 
mighty5's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Hey guys, just asking for your thoughts on my room potentially needing LFE dampening. I read through about 5 pages of this thread but had to stop due to the technical pillow fighting lol. I am very green when it comes to this subject but I'm trying to learn as best I can. My room is a rectangle shaped room, dimensions are 10x13x8ft high. All walls are drywall including ceiling. The floor is hardwood. This room is pretty darn reflective. Only furniture I have in there is my couch along with the speaker components. I ordered some 1 inch thick foam to eliminate the echo only (I think I have that issue covered). My main concern is bass dampening. My sub at certain frequencies tends to sound mono-toned (very low LFE events sound the same). I have a SVS PB2000. Assuming I've done all the adjusting possible on the receiver as well as sub positioning, do you guys think my subwoofer will sound a bit more dynamic/tight once the room has bass traps? From the research I've done I'll place the bass traps from floor to ceiling in the two corners of the room behind me (sub in front left side of room) and maybe even along the entire back ceiling corner/wall of the room as well. Now I don't want the room to be totally dead, I do want a little liveliness...so I'm only going to cover the first points of reflection with the 1 inch foam including ceiling. The floor, I'm going to throw a nice rug in front. Do you guys think 12x12x12 foam bass traps will improve the quality of bass in my room? Or am I asking too much from a small room? Thanks in advance for any suggestions from such a robust group of gentlemen and I use that term strictly
mighty5 is offline  
post #195 of 233 Old 12-22-2015, 10:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: New Milford, CT, USA
Posts: 6,183
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 260 Post(s)
Liked: 343
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty5 View Post
do you guys think my subwoofer will sound a bit more dynamic/tight once the room has bass traps?
Yes!

Quote:
Do you guys think 12x12x12 foam bass traps will improve the quality of bass in my room?
Not nearly as much an improvement as you'd get from good (and larger) bass traps.

Quote:
Or am I asking too much from a small room?
The problem isn't the room size as much as expecting good results from foam that's only one inch thick, or "bass traps" only 12 inches wide. You said your room is mostly empty, so it seems you should have room for treatment large enough to be effective.

--Ethan
Ethan Winer is offline  
post #196 of 233 Old 12-22-2015, 11:38 AM
Member
 
mighty5's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
Yes!

Not nearly as much an improvement as you'd get from good (and larger) bass traps.

The problem isn't the room size as much as expecting good results from foam that's only one inch thick, or "bass traps" only 12 inches wide. You said your room is mostly empty, so it seems you should have room for treatment large enough to be effective.

--Ethan
Hello Ethan, funny I thought you looked familiar when I was looking at Youtube Videos last nite. Saw some of your stuff on bass traps and audio dampening, very nice. The bass traps I was considering were the 12x12x12 foam ones that go in to the corners. The 1 inch stuff was going to be for nulling the echo a bit. Is there a specific bass trap you recommend? Cheers.
mighty5 is offline  
post #197 of 233 Old 12-22-2015, 12:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: New Milford, CT, USA
Posts: 6,183
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 260 Post(s)
Liked: 343
My company sells acoustic treatment, so it's not proper for me to suggest what you should get. I will say that foam only one inch thick isn't great, and 12-inch foam bass traps are too small to be truly effective at low frequencies.

--Ethan
Ethan Winer is offline  
post #198 of 233 Old 12-22-2015, 12:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DonH50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Monument CO
Posts: 9,263
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1631 Post(s)
Liked: 1155
I do not work for Ethan, have some experience with acoustics, and can say emphatically that 12" x 12" x 1" foam in the corners will do almost nothing for bass. Even if 12" x 12" x 12" is not a typo, and they really are 12" thick, that's still not enough area to help bass. The soft foam absorbers work very poorly IME and tend to dry up, discolor, and flake away after a few years. I have some still in shipping boxes because, after putting up a few, there just weren't helping. I have a plethora of absorbers in my room all similar to those Ethan's company sells and they are far superior. GiK and others also sell good products, but going to Ethan's website, doing some research by reading his tutorials, and sending him some pictures of your room to look over will be of great benefit. He even has DIY instructions on his site.

www.realtraps.com

You can also find gazillions of other references online and in print but that is a good starting point.

I much prefer a mixture of absorption and diffusion, but my room is bad enough and diffusors expensive enough (and I simply have no time these days for DIY) that I went with absorbers to help tame reflections high and low.

FWIWFM - Don
mthomas47 likes this.

"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley
DonH50 is offline  
post #199 of 233 Old 12-24-2015, 03:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mthomas47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,360
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1786 Post(s)
Liked: 2098
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty5 View Post
Hello Ethan, funny I thought you looked familiar when I was looking at Youtube Videos last nite. Saw some of your stuff on bass traps and audio dampening, very nice. The bass traps I was considering were the 12x12x12 foam ones that go in to the corners. The 1 inch stuff was going to be for nulling the echo a bit. Is there a specific bass trap you recommend? Cheers.

Hi,

Ethan and Don have already given you good answers, but I wanted to add another voice for the futility of using the foam bass traps you can buy on Amazon and other places. If I remember correctly, they only provide any meaningful help down to about 240Hz, which is to say virtually no help at all. There are a number of places on-line to buy real bass traps. Ethan's company is a perfectly good starting point, particularly as they can also give you placement advice.

Regards,
Mike
mthomas47 is offline  
post #200 of 233 Old 01-06-2016, 11:34 AM
Member
 
mighty5's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthomas47 View Post
Hi,

Ethan and Don have already given you good answers, but I wanted to add another voice for the futility of using the foam bass traps you can buy on Amazon and other places. If I remember correctly, they only provide any meaningful help down to about 240Hz, which is to say virtually no help at all. There are a number of places on-line to buy real bass traps. Ethan's company is a perfectly good starting point, particularly as they can also give you placement advice.

Regards,
Mike
Thanks for the replies. Here are a couple of pics of what I've done so far. Room acoustics are much improved. Pretty happy so far. I also have panels on the ceiling as well. Just have to add some on the front wall and I should be done...god willing lol. Not sure why I can't remove that gif so just ignore it.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_1549[2].jpg
Views:	70
Size:	262.5 KB
ID:	1167202   Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_1551[2].jpg
Views:	65
Size:	273.6 KB
ID:	1167210  
Attached Images
 
mighty5 is offline  
post #201 of 233 Old 01-06-2016, 12:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mthomas47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,360
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1786 Post(s)
Liked: 2098
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty5 View Post
Thanks for the replies. Here are a couple of pics of what I've done so far. Room acoustics are much improved. Pretty happy so far. I also have panels on the ceiling as well. Just have to add some on the front wall and I should be done...god willing lol. Not sure why I can't remove that gif so just ignore it.

Hi,

It looks like you have done a lot, and I am glad that it sounds better. I can imagine that you had a lot of high frequency energy in that room before adding the treatments.

Regards,
Mike
mthomas47 is offline  
post #202 of 233 Old 01-06-2016, 01:42 PM
Member
 
mighty5's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthomas47 View Post
Hi,

It looks like you have done a lot, and I am glad that it sounds better. I can imagine that you had a lot of high frequency energy in that room before adding the treatments.

Regards,
Mike
Yes sounds much better thanks. Funny how one who was oblivious to room acoustics suddenly reads a few articles and ends up stepping into a rabbits hole!. I don't think i'll ever get it perfect with a room that is 10x13x8ft high but I feel as though I've done the best I can with the budget and the space available. I was calibrating my receiver for hours last night after the new additions were in and the results were fantastic. I actually increased the distance settings in my receiver of my front speakers which caused them to sound like they were closer up to me and in turn I discovered that I was able to make a pretty decent audio circle around me vs having the sound seem squared with dead spots. The mic that came with my receiver gave me a decent starting point but as i've read before the best tool for dialing in a room is free of charge.


Cheers

Last edited by mighty5; 01-07-2016 at 11:43 AM.
mighty5 is offline  
post #203 of 233 Old 01-06-2016, 04:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mthomas47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,360
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1786 Post(s)
Liked: 2098
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty5 View Post
Yes sounds much better thanks. Funny how one who was oblivious to room acoustics suddenly reads a few articles and ends up stepping into a rabbits hole!. I don't think i'll ever get it perfect with a room that is 10x13x8ft high but I feel as though I've done the best I can with the budget and the space available. I was calibrating my receiver for hours last night after the new additions were in and the results were fantastic. I actually shortened the distance settings in my receiver of my front speakers which caused them to sound like they were closer up to me and in turn I discovered that I was able to make a pretty decent audio circle around me vs having the sound seem squared with dead spots. The mic that came with my receiver gave me a decent starting point but as i've read before the best tool for dialing in a room is free of charge.

Cheers

I agree with you that our hearing is sort of the final test for good SQ. I debated whether to say anything about one comment you made, and then decided that you would prefer to know. When your AVR sets distances, it is trying to time the arrival sound of all your speakers to coincide at your MLP. So, more distant speakers are speeded-up slightly, and closer speakers are slowed-down, so that the sounds from the various speakers all arrive at the same time.

I am not disputing that you could perhaps achieve better SQ by making a manual adjustment to your distance settings, as that is strictly a matter of preference. And if you say it sounds better to you now, I believe you. But if you wanted the sound from a particular speaker to arrive sooner, you would increase the distance setting. That, in turn, would cause your AVR to speed-up the sound from that now more distant speaker, so that it would arrive sooner. I guess that seems a little counter-intuitive at first. So, your methodology was actually backwards, but as long as it sounds better now, no worries.

Regards,
Mike
mthomas47 is offline  
post #204 of 233 Old 01-07-2016, 11:04 AM
Member
 
mighty5's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthomas47 View Post
I agree with you that our hearing is sort of the final test for good SQ. I debated whether to say anything about one comment you made, and then decided that you would prefer to know. When your AVR sets distances, it is trying to time the arrival sound of all your speakers to coincide at your MLP. So, more distant speakers are speeded-up slightly, and closer speakers are slowed-down, so that the sounds from the various speakers all arrive at the same time.

I am not disputing that you could perhaps achieve better SQ by making a manual adjustment to your distance settings, as that is strictly a matter of preference. And if you say it sounds better to you now, I believe you. But if you wanted the sound from a particular speaker to arrive sooner, you would increase the distance setting. That, in turn, would cause your AVR to speed-up the sound from that now more distant speaker, so that it would arrive sooner. I guess that seems a little counter-intuitive at first. So, your methodology was actually backwards, but as long as it sounds better now, no worries.

Regards,
Mike
Oh gees I did get it backwards. When I was auto calibrating I noticed that my mic was placing my fronts and center too close. So yes, I increased the setting not decreased. I'm using Sony's DCAC. Thank you for clarifying and feel free to bring up anything I may have explained wrong.
Cheers!
mthomas47 likes this.

Last edited by mighty5; 01-07-2016 at 11:39 AM.
mighty5 is offline  
post #205 of 233 Old 01-11-2016, 02:59 PM
Member
 
mighty5's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 19
So just a quick story. My wife walked into my game/movie room and notice an immediate difference in sound. She said, "this room is where sound goes to die" I took that as a compliment. We have all wood flooring in our house and all my walls and ceiling are also highly reflective, my room is the only one with sound dampening material other than couches and furniture. I simply treated all the first point of contact and treated the corners with bass traps. Came out great, I'm very happy with results. It ran me around $300.00usd. I used 16 foam bass traps total, and about 60 panels. I highly recommend anyone who hasn't treated their rooms to do so. It almost sounds like I'm wearing head phones in there.


Cheers.
Isaac
mighty5 is offline  
post #206 of 233 Old 01-11-2016, 03:18 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 29,331
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 573 Post(s)
Liked: 406
We are having our HT/music room painted and redecorated. In preparation, I first removed all the bass traps and acoustic panels. That night, we watched a movie and my wife noted that it sounded like crap. Guess it was noticeable/audible.
mighty5 likes this.

Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile
http://www.stereophile.com/category/music-round

Kal Rubinson is offline  
post #207 of 233 Old 01-11-2016, 03:35 PM
Member
 
mighty5's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post
We are having our HT/music room painted and redecorated. In preparation, I first removed all the bass traps and acoustic panels. That night, we watched a movie and my wife noted that it sounded like crap. Guess it was noticeable/audible.
I'm such a snob now, I refuse to watch movies in the living room because it's not "acoustically treated". I asked my wife if I could put up some stuff just to dampen it a little and she was opposed to the idea. She said our home isn't a recording studio...funny because she sound like a broken record to me.


Cheers!
mighty5 is offline  
post #208 of 233 Old 01-11-2016, 04:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Alan P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 8,380
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4085 Post(s)
Liked: 2792
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty5 View Post
Oh gees I did get it backwards. When I was auto calibrating I noticed that my mic was placing my fronts and center too close. So yes, I increased the setting not decreased. I'm using Sony's DCAC. Thank you for clarifying and feel free to bring up anything I may have explained wrong.
Cheers!
Along with the great advice Mike has already given, I just wanted to point out that the distance setting that your auto-setup routine determines is best for your speakers is usually correct. Most times, this will jive with the actual physical distance...but many times it will not, and this is perfectly normal. The auto-setup will take into account reflections, electrical delay and the speaker's interaction with the room and adjust distances accordingly so that all sounds arrive at your ears at the same time.

Point being; I wouldn't mess with the speaker distance settings*.

*Unless you have the ability to measure your response to make sure you aren't doing anything destructive.


Now, the sub distance setting...that's a whole 'nother can o' worms.
Alan P is offline  
post #209 of 233 Old 01-11-2016, 04:07 PM
Senior Member
 
rick98761's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 386
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 95
So I just moved and I am using this spare bedroom for my home theater. It's small, but is working well. I've asked advice in a few threads around here, and in quite a few they tell me to look at treating the room at some point. This is where we get into the point of home theater that I am totally uncomfortable with and know nothing. Where should I start with figuring what and where I need treatments? Here are some photos of my room. For what is it worth the sub is no between the center and front right speaker. It was behind the couch in this photo. The equipment is in the closet by the right front. I am considering making a cutout in the wall and making the equipment accessible from the main room.
rick98761 is offline  
post #210 of 233 Old 01-11-2016, 04:12 PM
Member
 
fmalitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hawthorn Woods, IL USA
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth3si View Post
Assuming my room actually needs bass trapping to deal with the 100-300Hz range where a lot of instruments and voices have the most energy, would I still need to measure the frequency response of my room to figure out where the issues are and how big they are before adding bass traps?<br><br>
Are measurements needed to help me decide what kind of bass traps to use, how much is required, what specific size to get, and where to place them in the room? Can an expert give me this type of practical room advice without my submission of frequency measurements?
If one is familiar with live music, the bass can be tuned by ear. Sadly, most people seem to be unable to do so. The very best investment, as someone said above, is a second woofer, not right next to the first. The point is not more bass but more uniform, smoother bass. Most of this is geometric (a good room) and some issues cannot be corrected without moving your listening position or the woofer. Low on dough? Move the woofer.
Here's what my partner, Bob Carver, told me 25 years ago: Put the woofer on your chair. Crawl around the floor barking (only kidding: hey, it's a woofer!). Sorry, I digress: crawl to the possible woofer locations. The one with the best bass is where you'll put the woofer! Try this before spending the money and dealing with the cosmetics of using bass traps.
fmalitz is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Audio Theory, Setup, and Chat

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off