[Stuart Wright]

We're interested in knowing how much effect you think the room has on the sound of your home entertainment system. We are thinking specifically of the dimensions of the room and the orientation of the walls, floor and ceiling.
Compared to the other components such as your amplifier(s) and source components, how much effect does your room have?

[Apollo11]

For some reason my lounge sucks all the bass out of my speakers, if I stand next to the back wall though they sound awesome

[dj-dulux]

The joys of pressure doubling at boundaries!

Dupe...

[mikim]

Originally Posted by Apollo11

For some reason my lounge sucks all the bass out of my speakers, if I stand next to the back though wall they sound awesome

Try moving your speakers away from the front wall... see if that helps

I know my room layout is having and effect because of the off-symmetry alignment of the windows, and positioning of the sofas. There are no bass traps or sound diffusers at any point around the walls/ceiling..

It's a lounge, so there is very little I can do.

The same can be said for the light colour walls... it is killing my picture CR.

[advid]

..as well as a TV buff - I've also been a Hi-Fi nerd since the 80's and despite being told about to many components in the chain the best thing I ever brought that sorted out my room acoustics was a 12 band 1/3 octave graphic equaliser...got my room sounding absolutely as I wanted (too much bass..boomy...standing waves ect) all sorted now...

[Mark.Yudkin]

Don't forget the effect shape can have on the sound - this is my main issue.

[Shockabuku]

Huge! 'nuff said

[deckingman]

Obviously quite a bit. Not only room shape and dimensions but also how it is furnished (we have laminate flooring or ceramic tiles in the rest of the donwstairs, but these are banned from the lounge in favour of carpet).

IMO something simple like closing the curtains has far more effect than exotic cables.

However, in my case, I find that Yamaha's implemenation of parametric equalisation on my AV receiver, does a very reasonable job of correcting the problems. For aesthetic reasons, my speakers are not ideal, nor are they ideally placed, but the "ypaq" has taken care of it (with some tweeking to the settings). This is easily demonstrated by switching to "Pure Direct" mode (which sounds awfully boomy due to my speakers placement).

So I guess it begs the question of how much time, effort and cash should we spend on "traditional" room accoustic treatment, vs using electronics to compensate. My personal belief is that it is probably best to follow established wisdom with regard to speaker placement, furnishings etc and use parametric equalisation to make the "fine adjustments".

Obviously, if you have no form of parametric equalisation available, then room treatment may be the only option, but it still begs the question of whether one should invest in the "electronic" solution or "traditional" room treatments.

Just my twopence worth.

[gotmaxpower]

If your walls are made out of flexible material, they will flex with the sub and in a sense create a gigantic vibrating room (quite witty, if you think about it). According to a small article I read about sub placement, concrete walls are the worst type of wall you can have, and don't reflex, hence creating worse depth and tone than if you were to have flexible walls, made out of plasterboard or the like.

[RamMalc]

Several years ago in my bachelor days i had a flat which for the most part was underground . At the front only aprox the top two feet of the room was above pavement level . It was a large square living room where i could easily place the tv/surround sound system on one side and be seated directly opposite on the other . Even with a very cheap system i had remarkable sound quality , so much so that my landlord who had a far far more expensive set up occassional popped in to watch a movie .

When i eventually moved out into the house we now live in the old system did a job but was really not that much better than the sound from the tv alone . We spent quite a lot of money on the best Philips system we could afford and there was an immediate improvement BUT it was still some way off the results the original cheap set up had in the flat .

Our conclusion was and still is that the accoustics in the flat being underground and the fact that we could set the speakers up exactly where they were designed to go made all the difference . Our room now is , we feel , too small to get the full benmefits and a poorly designed place to sit in the ideal "sweet spot" for listening and viewing .

[Dave H]

There is no option for "haven't got a clue"

Dave.

[nickw27]

Maybe I'm lucky, but I think I played a blinder when we bought this house.
One look at the concrete floored, 7m x 5m x 2.5m living room and it was sold to me!
Or one could always invest in the massively expensive room frequency analysis kit, and do it right.
cheers
NickW

[tim92gts]

My room is a nightmare, It doubles as the family kitchen. The best improvement was investing £100 in a couple of carpet remnants which i can change when they get too cruddy.
An 18 inch curtain over the RSJ across the middle helped a lot.
Open shelves help break up the reflections so i haven't got round to making any doors yet!
I've applied for permission for a 10 x 8 Metre conservatory as a listening room, that'll need a fair amount of acoustic foam and curtains / blinds.
Cheers
Tim

[it0011]

Lost the laminate in favour of a carpet with thick underlay. Stuck in a big soft sofa and put up some heavy curtains instead of metal blinds. The improvement was very noticable

[Xpilot]

Thick fitted carpet and lined curtains do a lot to dampen unwanted resonances.
The TV room is blessed with a picture rail which survived my refurbishments. Speaker cables are laid on top of the rail for surround and back speakers. These speakers are hung from the rail using substantial cast picture hooks.
I was thus able to place the side speakers in several different places until they were finalised.
The set up if very wife friendly as the cables are hidden and the speakers surprisingly are hardly noticed.

Using a Denon AV receiver with full microphone balancing and equalisation matches the system to the room and I am a happy bunny.

Xpilot

[Black 5]

I have a purpose built home cinema room where I didn't need to make too many compromises in terms of speaker placement, furnishings, seating placement, etc.

However, that didn't stop me experiencing what I can only describe as a major component upgrade once the system had been EQ'd in the room.

I'm surprised there is anyone on this forum who thinks their room isn't having much of an impact on the sound! Aren't we better informed than that?

[ch3rub]

Let's not forget you have to start some day Black 5

AVF is an excellent place to start your HT/HiFi adventure. I did myself just a few months ago.... right in time to plan everything before I bought a new house.

Now I'm just finishing my dedicated HT room (was a garage when we moved in). In therms of room and acoustics it does have tremendous impact on overall experience. I'll post some more details and pics when I'm finished.

Take care, back to work now

[Black 5]

Originally Posted by ch3rub

Let's not forget you have to start some day Black 5

Fair comment! Good luck with the conversion

[Boxinghris]

The thing is, if we have a smaller room then we don't need to crank the volume up anywhere near as much as a larger room and so the room's subjective effect isn't as important as the objective difference, that is to say that objectively a larger room will most definitely seem to lower the volume for an equal volume setting, but in reality we'd just turn the volume up so there isn't a problem.

That's the simplest example of how any speaker can be adjusted to a room's size via the volume knob, but of course the reality is that large speakers can excite small rooms despite not having to be cranked right up and it is well worth experimenting with toe-in as this increases the distance to the rear wall reflection.

Having a sub which allows bass adjustment could be best for smaller rooms, but I prefer to have my bass emanating from the stereo speakers as it's perfectly integrated, I'm old fashioned and I've no room for a sub.

[Black 5]

Originally Posted by Boxinghris

The thing is, if we have a smaller room then we don't need to crank the volume up anywhere near as much as a larger room and so the room's subjective effect isn't as important as the objective difference, that is to say that objectively a larger room will most definitely seem to lower the volume for an equal volume setting, but in reality we'd just turn the volume up so there isn't a problem.

That's the simplest example of how any speaker can be adjusted to a room's size via the volume knob, but of course the reality is that large speakers can excite small rooms despite not having to be cranked right up and it is well worth experimenting with toe-in as this increases the distance to the rear wall reflection.

Having a sub which allows bass adjustment could be best for smaller rooms, but I prefer to have my bass emanating from the stereo speakers as it's perfectly integrated, I'm old fashioned and I've no room for a sub.

That's not how I'd see it necessarily. When my room calibration was done, the samples were not taken at high volume. The measuring equipment and analysis software worked equally at any volume to show where the imbalances in frequency response were, relative to a specific range of listening positions. It's in managing bass that the differences of calibration are most noticeable and I think the same would apply regardless of the size of the room. ie if you had a resonance that doubled the amplitude of a bass frequency at your seating position, it will double it at every level of volume as it's a function of the resonances of the room - the amplifier doesn't know the difference.

Looking at the response graphs when my room was calibrated I was surprised by some of the very specific 'spikes' in frequency response of the room and with the filters I had available in my room eq software, we were able to smooth those out substantially, without affecting neighbouring frequencies. The difference is very noticeable and because I'm no longer using amp power to generate those peaks in the bass, I gain in terms of overall 'headroom' in the system.

I listen to movies at 0db, when each channel's volume is calibrated using white noise referenced to 75db (weighted, etc). In a smaller room I would do exactly the same, though I wouldn't have to set the pre-amps so high to achieve it. I do this because I understand when dvds are mastered, this is the reference point they are meant to have used to reproduce the sound as designed by the sound engineer. Room size doesn't come into this as the volume will appear to be at the same level in both a large or a small room when both are calibrated this way.

Finally, while I could live without a sub for bass duties when listening to music (though I choose not to) there are very few domestically friendly speakers that can reach the low levels of a decent sub and that's an important factor for movie enjoyment for me. It's how deep, controlled and even the system is that matters to me more than outright volume and I think the sub is a vital part of that equation.

Just some thoughts...

[Boxinghris]

Originally Posted by Black 5

That's not how I'd see it necessarily. When my room calibration was done, the samples were not taken at high volume. The measuring equipment and analysis software worked equally at any volume to show where the imbalances in frequency response were, relative to a specific range of listening positions. It's in managing bass that the differences of calibration are most noticeable and I think the same would apply regardless of the size of the room. ie if you had a resonance that doubled the amplitude of a bass frequency at your seating position, it will double it at every level of volume as it's a function of the resonances of the room - the amplifier doesn't know the difference.

Looking at the response graphs when my room was calibrated I was surprised by some of the very specific 'spikes' in frequency response of the room and with the filters I had available in my room eq software, we were able to smooth those out substantially, without affecting neighbouring frequencies. The difference is very noticeable and because I'm no longer using amp power to generate those peaks in the bass, I gain in terms of overall 'headroom' in the system.

I listen to movies at 0db, when each channel's volume is calibrated using white noise referenced to 75db (weighted, etc). In a smaller room I would do exactly the same, though I wouldn't have to set the pre-amps so high to achieve it. I do this because I understand when dvds are mastered, this is the reference point they are meant to have used to reproduce the sound as designed by the sound engineer. Room size doesn't come into this as the volume will appear to be at the same level in both a large or a small room when both are calibrated this way.

Finally, while I could live without a sub for bass duties when listening to music (though I choose not to) there are very few domestically friendly speakers that can reach the low levels of a decent sub and that's an important factor for movie enjoyment for me. It's how deep, controlled and even the system is that matters to me more than outright volume and I think the sub is a vital part of that equation.

Just some thoughts...

Interesting reading your post and good points made, although despite me saying the effect a room has is reduced by lowering the volume I did state that large speakers can excite the room no matter what the volume is and that a sub is probably the best option as it can be adjusted.

I have been seriously considering a sub and at a pinch could probably find somewhere for it to sit, but the Revels I have already go down to 33Hz and lower with boundary reinforcement - the matching B15 sub does go down to 25Hz however so I do realise I'm on a very sticky wicket here and your own experiences with EQ are an unwelcome nudge in the right direction.

For listening to music 'seriously' I would never use any form of EQ and this is what kept me away from such processing initially when my HT and music system were integrated together. Now I've got a separate audio system upstairs and always have another audio system on review downstairs, maybe it is time to introduce some EQ to the HT system along with a decent sub.

[Black 5]

Originally Posted by Boxinghris

I have been seriously considering a sub and at a pinch could probably find somewhere for it to sit, but the Revels I have already go down to 33Hz and lower with boundary reinforcement - the matching B15 sub does go down to 25Hz however so I do realise I'm on a very sticky wicket here and your own experiences with EQ are an unwelcome nudge in the right direction.

For listening to music 'seriously' I would never use any form of EQ and this is what kept me away from such processing initially when my HT and music system were integrated together. Now I've got a separate audio system upstairs and always have another audio system on review downstairs, maybe it is time to introduce some EQ to the HT system along with a decent sub.

If you only listen using a digital source, with a good room EQ system, you can do anything you want before the signal goes through the DAC and I don't believe it has any effect on the performance other than arises purely as a result of the filter settings. If you are EQing in the analog domain, I am sure that can't be the case.

I suppose I'm different to you, because having heard the benefits, my 'serious' listening is always done with the EQ on, because it removes the worst effects of my room on the sound and gives my amps more headroom. The difference between EQ on and off isn't subtle; more like a significant component upgrade and when the law of diminishing returns has long set in, it starts to look like good value by comparison

[Boxinghris]

Originally Posted by Black 5

If you only listen using a digital source, with a good room EQ system, you can do anything you want before the signal goes through the DAC and I don't believe it has any effect on the performance other than arises purely as a result of the filter settings.

On this I have to disagree with a vengeance as in my experience it's a case of the less processing the better, and indeed any EQ professionaly applied during a recording's mastering is obvious when heard through a resolving system.

Please note that my own dedicated audio system uses a valve output CD player, no preamp, valve amplification, silver cables and 95dB sensitive speakers so I'm probably a bit more critical than someone using a DVD player to play music through solid state amplification (which is why I wouldn't have a problem using EQ on my HT system myself).

If a room has such a negative effect on stereo music that it needs EQ'ing, I'd say that in the vast majority of cases it's a simple case of the speakers being too large for the room or positioned incorrectly, and a change to large stand mounts is usually a revelation especially in the typical UK living room.

[edward]

When I bought this place, the lounge I wanted for music/HT had two dimensions approximately right so I raised the roof to get the third dimension closer to one of the golden ratios. I was using floor-standing Missions and Audiolab in those days and, for the first time, I understood what reviewers meant when they talked about “transparent” sound – when I closed my eyes, the position of the speakers was no longer discernable. The sound stage, which had been good before was suddenly a whole lot better. What had changed: the dimensions of the room and the more careful positioning of the speakers within it (brought the furniture from the old place).

Later, I ungraded to a TAG McLaren system that was great for music but also great for movies. A year or two later, they added room equalisation (now JMREQ) to their new processors. I knew that because one half of the room was a lot harder than the other, it wasn’t ideal. When JMREQ was applied, the more natural sound was apparent immediately. It took listening to Blu Ray HD soundtracks, which bypass JMREQ, to remind me how much of an improvement room equalisation really brings.

OK, purists might criticise me for having added this equalisation but I am mindful that the recording engineers added equalisation before they cut the sound track I bought – and I don’t have the option of a cut without equalisation. If they’d known the properties of my listening room, they could have equalised it differently, but they didn’t, which, I think, is why JMREQ was invented.

[Boxinghris]

Originally Posted by edward

When I bought this place, the lounge I wanted for music/HT had two dimensions approximately right so I raised the roof to get the third dimension closer to one of the golden ratios. I was using floor-standing Missions and Audiolab in those days and, for the first time, I understood what reviewers meant when they talked about “transparent” sound – when I closed my eyes, the position of the speakers was no longer discernable. The sound stage, which had been good before was suddenly a whole lot better. What had changed: the dimensions of the room and the more careful positioning of the speakers within it (brought the furniture from the old place).

Later, I ungraded to a TAG McLaren system that was great for music but also great for movies. A year or two later, they added room equalisation (now JMREQ) to their new processors. I knew that because one half of the room was a lot harder than the other, it wasn’t ideal. When JMREQ was applied, the more natural sound was apparent immediately. It took listening to Blu Ray HD soundtracks, which bypass JMREQ, to remind me how much of an improvement room equalisation really brings.

OK, purists might criticise me for having added this equalisation but I am mindful that the recording engineers added equalisation before they cut the sound track I bought – and I don’t have the option of a cut without equalisation. If they’d known the properties of my listening room, they could have equalised it differently, but they didn’t, which, I think, is why JMREQ was invented.

Funnily enough, many moons ago I used to have a system comprising an Audiolab 8000S with Mission 752 Freedom speakers which was great - CD player was a Marantz and they worked very well together.

Putting my 'purists' hat on then, I still wouldn't criticise you for introducing EQ into your system as anyone should do what works for them and I wouldn't hesitate to use it in my HT system myself.

That being said, the system I use for 'serious' listening certainly would reveal the deficiencies of EQ just as it reveals the deficiencies of EQ applied in the studio to recordings, and most of the components I review are also highly resolving and any EQ or indeed any extra processing of any sort detracts from the midrange in particular.

Bear in mind that to buy my stereo speakers new would cost over £25,000 so they a wee bit more revealing than most.

[Black 5]

Originally Posted by Boxinghris

On this I have to disagree with a vengeance as in my experience it's a case of the less processing the better, and indeed any EQ professionaly applied during a recording's mastering is obvious when heard through a resolving system.

Please note that my own dedicated audio system uses a valve output CD player, no preamp, valve amplification, silver cables and 95dB sensitive speakers so I'm probably a bit more critical than someone using a DVD player to play music through solid state amplification (which is why I wouldn't have a problem using EQ on my HT system myself).

If a room has such a negative effect on stereo music that it needs EQ'ing, I'd say that in the vast majority of cases it's a simple case of the speakers being too large for the room or positioned incorrectly, and a change to large stand mounts is usually a revelation especially in the typical UK living room.

I would say every room has a negative effect on stereo music and the differences good quality EQ, in the digital domain, can make are stark. I did say earlier, room EQ is most beneficial for bass, where the room resonances interfere the most, and therefore there isn't any mid frequency correction going on in my case. The room's imperfections aren't the fault of the speaker and moving speakers around only changes the compromise, especially if you have to take into account domestic bliss.
I think the effects of EQ added by a professional sound engineer, are deliberate and if that's what you hear, it was meant to be there whether you can notice it or not, with a couple of caveats; 1) the studio engineer wouldn't have been worked in a purely high quality digital environment on an old recording and 2) how much involvement does the sound engineer have in mastering the CD - again, on transfer of old recordings he's very unlikely to have been involved.
Anyway, I still believe if my system can with a high degree of precision correct for a room resonance in the digital domain, where the side effects of analogue filtering don't exist, then all I'll notice is the absence of the resonance, nothing else. Tag McLaren dvd players can still knock spots off all but the best CD players and when partnered with their low jitter hardware and room EQ software, IMO it's a killer combo - don't knock it 'til you've tried it
Each to his own of course and I wouldn't mind listening to your speakers, but then I learned a long time ago never to listen to anything you can't afford

[edward]

No matter where you put speakers in a room, I suspect they’re going to excite some kind of resonance but I did seek a professional consensus before choosing where in the room I placed mine. As I recall, the position was to avoid the resonances that most people find most annoying.

Yes, keeping domestic peace can actually have advantages; originally, I was told that Sub placement didn’t really matter much. I couldn’t get the level I needed, even with a massive boost on the JMREQ curve, so I bought a second (through AVForums actually). When my wife objected, I agreed to position them over in the corner. That wasn’t enough – she wanted them stacked. After resistance, I checked and found some guy on the web who recommended stacking that model. Yep, you guessed it, they coupled with the walls of the corner and shook the place so much I had to turn the JMREQ off. When it was redone, this time with the low end really dropped, and the difference… OK, we still get the odd acoustic thump in the chest only when the sound engineer intended.

M&Ks are very impressive for movies but they took a while to burn in before they were acceptable for music. If money wasn’t an option, I’d go for a set of Wilson Benesch speakers – same power but with an immediately obvious refinement, even on movies. I’d keep my subs though.

When you're next going to be in Reading...

[Boxinghris]

Originally Posted by Black 5

I would say every room has a negative effect on stereo music and the differences good quality EQ, in the digital domain, can make are stark. I did say earlier, room EQ is most beneficial for bass, where the room resonances interfere the most, and therefore there isn't any mid frequency correction going on in my case. The room's imperfections aren't the fault of the speaker and moving speakers around only changes the compromise, especially if you have to take into account domestic bliss.
I think the effects of EQ added by a professional sound engineer, are deliberate and if that's what you hear, it was meant to be there whether you can notice it or not, with a couple of caveats; 1) the studio engineer wouldn't have been worked in a purely high quality digital environment on an old recording and 2) how much involvement does the sound engineer have in mastering the CD - again, on transfer of old recordings he's very unlikely to have been involved.
Anyway, I still believe if my system can with a high degree of precision correct for a room resonance in the digital domain, where the side effects of analogue filtering don't exist, then all I'll notice is the absence of the resonance, nothing else. Tag McLaren dvd players can still knock spots off all but the best CD players and when partnered with their low jitter hardware and room EQ software, IMO it's a killer combo - don't knock it 'til you've tried it
Each to his own of course and I wouldn't mind listening to your speakers, but then I learned a long time ago never to listen to anything you can't afford

When it comes to listening to music, we're at opposite ends of the spectrum in regard to EQ then as I certainly believe that the effect a room has on the sound of speakers which are the correct size for that room is minimal, and this isn't a belief based on a purist doctrine but is based on experience of numerous components in numerous rooms over numerous years; your experiences may differ.

Tag McLaren DVD players aren't suitable for serious CD listening and jitter isn't the major problem the public have been led to believe although of course it's a factor; an Audio Note DAC5 for instance costs as much as a small car, resolves more detail from a 16 bit CD than most SACD players get from an SACD disc and has just about the worst jitter measurements of any digital source and certainly worse than a £20.00 DVD player from TESCOs.

My own CD player is possibly the best sounding digital source ever, so why does it use Philips DAC chips from the 80's and a CD transport if DVD transports and chips have improved over older technology significantly?

Abbingdon Music Research - CD - 77 Reference Class Disk Processor

EQ for music? Bah Humbug!

[Black 5]

Yes, I suppose we are at opposite ends of the spectrum and that's fine for me Wouldn't do if we were all the same and couldn't tolerate differences of opinion

I haven't told you yet that I listen to most music using Dolby PLII, because I prefer it, so I'm definitely no purist!! I don't think that invalidates my comments though.

The problem with any 'high resolution' system is the poor quality of CDs, (and I'm not just referring to the music on them!). They are for the most part the weakest link in any system (as well as my ears!).

[Boxinghris]

Originally Posted by Black 5

The problem with any 'high resolution' system is the poor quality of CDs, (and I'm not just referring to the music on them!). They are for the most part the weakest link in any system (as well as my ears!).

Absolutely, and in fact I prefer the older recordings which were mastered and mixed in analogue rather than modern recordings mixed using something like pro-tools; it's handy that I also prefer the older artists by and large sp plenty of cheap CDs on Ebay to go at.

Some studios do a great job recording/mixing digitally however, especially the likes of Audioquest, mapleshade, Linn, MFSL, Chesky etc, but then again none of them use any form of EQ.