Quote:
what do y

A way to make Ethans' products dissapear in the room?

RG

I want an acoustic treatment and isolation product that can just coat the walls like paint. Also, it has to sell for less than $100/gallon.

I also want a cure for cancer and world peace.

I have my system at a point where the only thing really holding it back is the room, so it's tough to think of tweaks, or at least any that I'd try.

I think metallurgy is the final frontier. Think about it.

Also, I don't think people are supporting their cables far enough off the floor. Please develop a ceiling-mounted cable hanger.

Oh! This isn't really a tweak, but how about it?

Sommelier CD Storage:

For the wine and music enthusiast, a combination CD/wine rack. Never before have gustation and audition harmonized so well. (tm)

-Ability to group musical genres with wine varieties to create "mood-ules"

-Available in a variety of hardwoods, including cherry, oak and maple. Custom stains and finishes upon request.

Quote:
I'm sure I don't have to tell you what I consider the biggest problem in 99 percent of all listening rooms.

Uh . . .

Too much cat hair?

(I understand hirsute felines make great high frequency absorbers.)

Quote:
So, what do y

That's actually a smashing idea!

Please post pictures of the prototype when it is finished.

The prototype is in his room. When I was helping him with room treatments I handed him a double gatefold LP cover and told him to sit in his low backed chair with the open cover behind his head. "Cover" - "no cover". "Cover" - "no cover".

Fold the cover into a 45 degree angle and do the same. "Forward" - "backward". "Forward" - "backward".

"Do you hear a difference?"

"Yeah, I do. Ya'know, we could make this into a tweaky product!"

His decor is modern eclectic. Mine is Arts and Crafts. His is worn out recliner. Mine is Morris chair.

Sorry, I can't remember the name of the LP but I doubt that's important.

Cool! Thanks, Jan.

We need a device to remove or effectively "noise cancel" the background noise generated by a spouse that distorts the desired signal.
Also we need a method to conteract the acoustic effects caused by room pressure differences cuased by HVAC and ceiling fans.

Jan- what you're referring to is called a wing-Back chair and was quite popular in the 30-50s and gradually fell out of favor for less bulky furniture. It's original purpose was to face a fireplace and capture as much of the heat as possible. At the time "stereo" did not exist and I don't think anyone thought much about room reflections, but I bet it'd do what you're suggesting!

Yes, I had an old, green, uncomfortable wingback that I inherited from my mother. I used it on ocassion when listening. It was quite uncomfortable (too much like sitting bolt upright in a church pew for my tastes) and it did nothing for the front of the room reflections. But that was what crossed my mind when my friend suggested this could become a commercial tweak.

Pro's and con's to a wingback? First, it's uncomfortable. Second, it's uncomfortable. Third, wingback chairs don't fit all decors and look quite out of place alongside my Morris chair. Besides that, they're uncomfortable.

Since my friend has eclectic modern he thought one of the "egg" shaped chairs from the '60's would be ideal. He was thinking of something more cocoonish than a wingback.

I don't know about the sound, but my fantasy listening chair is an Eames Lounge.

Quote:
A way to make Ethans' products dissapear in the room?

Actually, that is very simple.

With acoustic treatment you can have effective, attractive, or affordable. Pick any two.

If you want all three it will cost you. But it's not at all hard to do. The best solution is the WallMate system. We're looking at being a rep for them since this comes up so much. For a coupla grand you can completely cover all the panels on a wall, and see only a beautiful stretched fabric surface.

--Ethan

Quote:
I want an acoustic treatment and isolation product that can just coat the walls like paint. Also, it has to sell for less than $100/gallon. I also want a cure for cancer and world peace.

Man, you sure know how to stretch the definition of "tweak!"

Quote:
Also, I don't think people are supporting their cables far enough off the floor. Please develop a ceiling-mounted cable hanger.

Okay, now that is a tweak.

--Ethan

Quote:
a friend has suggested a listening chair that comes up high behind the head to minimize rear wall reflections and wraps far enough around the listener's head to minimize front of the room reflections.

That's not a tweak either, but it could be useful if it's done right. But it's not easy to do right. First, a high back is detrimental unless it's highly absorbent. I actually tested this, and reported the result with graphs and subjective commentary (oops) here:

www.realtraps.com/rfz.htm

Since the chair has to be absorbent, why not just put the absorption on the rear wall and be done with it?

Another issue is the main problem with rear wall reflections are peaks and nulls at bass frequencies. No high-back chair I know of can effectively block that. And if it could, then the chair itself will create the very same problem as explained in my first point above.

I've considered on and off for years offering an "audiophile" chair that optimizes these things and truly does improve the acoustics at the listener's ears. But it seems like a huge hassle so I never bothered. If your friend is serious and wants to go into business making chairs, I'd be glad to talk to him about helping with the design.

--Ethan

While applying equalization to correct for room modes, surface properties and speaker/listener position is fairly common, does anyone apply EQ correction based on the results of their hearing tests?

Or should we equalize based on the difference between our hearing response and the hearing response of the recording engineer?

I'm thinking it's probably a bad idea to EQ based on hearing tests of your ears. Your constant reference in life is your own hearing (however flawed or deviated from the ideal it may be) and to alter only the audio system will make it less true to your baseline rooted in everyday life.

Buddha - For a fun tweak in your hotel room at CES, why not suspend all cables from fishing line so that nothing touches a wall or carpet?

Quote:
While applying equalization to correct for room modes

First, I'm not big on room EQ at all. Maybe below 40 Hz it can help a little. But bass response changes so much over small distances that any change for the better at one place risks making things worse even a few inches away. Such as your other ear.

As for EQ'ing for one's hearing, I wouldn't do that either because you're already used to hearing what you hear. What next, EQ'ing to "correct" for the sound of a Strad violin?

--Ethan

Trust me I'm not expert or even close... but just a thought....

While listening to music, I personally like to listen to certain things about songs that apeal to me. Sadly this usually involves the first few minutes of a song... skip to the solo... and move on to the next song. With all this room "creations" you guys talk about, should not there be a consideration for how much each and evey song you listen to can change dramtically from one song to the next? I struggle some times with this in the fact that one song may be biased in bass, and lots of mids.. and the next song is completely different. I wish there was a way to process the songs we listen to into a "personalized" processor that truely remembers what I like to hear. (Then of course it would be adjustable to what the person sitting next to me would like to hear. But then again, isn't the theroy behind all of this to be listening to what the ARTIST wanted us to hear?

Quote:
But bass response changes so much over small distances that any change for the better at one place risks making things worse even a few inches away. Such as your other ear.

EQ has its limitations; but you'll have to explain how a 50Hz pressure wave over 22' peak to peak can be significantly altered by EQ over the distance between one's ears - say 6".

Quote:

Quote:
While applying equalization to correct for room modes

First, I'm not big on room EQ at all. Maybe below 40 Hz it can help a little. But bass response changes so much over small distances that any change for the better at one place risks making things worse even a few inches away. Such as your other ear.

As for EQ'ing for one's hearing, I wouldn't do that either because you're already used to hearing what you hear. What next, EQ'ing to "correct" for the sound of a Strad violin?

--Ethan

I agree.

Fix the room FIRST. Eq's or any active correction systems..only make a mess, IMHO. You are still left with the nodes and excitation issues irregardless. Those issues must be tamed or removed to fix the room. Acoustics 101. Except that so few know how to do it correctly.

Here's one that you will get, and practically feel ill when I remind you: How many times have you been called in and shortchanged, handcuffed, derided, ignored, and given grief over pricing... while trying to fix an overpaid architect's mess? Nearly everytime? It wouldn't surprise me.

I have only heard real time frequency/time correction systems in acoustically "OK" rooms and have yet to be impressed. Yes, they change the sound but it doesn't sound "better".

OTOH, I have heard well treated rooms. The difference acoustic treatments can make are ear-boggling.

My guess is that a sound correction system in a properly treated room can be a nice tweak, but how much would you need it?

Quote:
I have only heard real time frequency/time correction systems in acoustically "OK" rooms and have yet to be impressed. Yes, they change the sound but it doesn't sound "better".

OTOH, I have heard well treated rooms. The difference acoustic treatments can make are ear-boggling.

My guess is that a sound correction system in a properly treated room can be a nice tweak, but how much would you need it?

A well done room needs no eq of any kind. period. However, getting that done, re finding the guy who can truly do it..and do it RIGHT..is practically a nightmare. There are tons of acoustics professionals who can fix a room, but do it horribly wrong, when it comes to fixing a room for AUDIO use. The vast majority of acoustical experts are 'professional' in nature and have just about zero to do with good audio reproduction. Even the weighting systems employed have zero to do with good audio (A, C weighting, etc)

Guys Like Ethan are rare, and we need them in the audio business. They get flack from the pro guys, the industrial guys, and no-one understands what they are doing. Seriously.

Except for the Audiophiles. We hear it.

You cannot, and should not, find an acoustical company in the phone book, and then have them 'do a room' for you.

That makes for a 99.999% chance of an audiophile disaster.

They must specifically specialize in fixing rooms for high end audio, and have a trackable, verifiable,and testable record for doing so.

Otherwise it's going to be a VERY expensive lesson.

My business partner is an expert in Acoustics, and mechanical noise control. He's done amazing things that would make your jaw drop, that I'm not allowed to speak about in even general terms. I'm not even allowed to hint. He's done about 50 feature films, in terms of acoustics and noise control. The toughest environment of all.

He needs to be brought in before the pen is first struck to paper, at the formation of the idea of a room. Othrwise, the mess is going to need to be fixed after the fact, and that is horrendously expensive and far less effective, most times.

For example, on a large multistory building with a noise and acoustics control agenda included, he needs to be there - slapping the architect about (and straightening them out) at the initial planning stages. Folks who know this stuff, in a way that works, are not all that common.

Getting that point through the skulls of those who work visually (ie, architects and those who hire them), or have issues with not being able to actually SEE what is being done (acoustics and noise control are actually..invisible!) is incredibly difficult and has to be tackled in a case by case manner. Even then, it is a nightmarish battle, even with the repeat customers, at times.

Now take what I said, and imagine dealing with the film business people. What a nightmare.

My partner is so good at doing what he does, that we have been hired to do the acoustics for the individual rooms at a high-end audio show, if the given outfit that has rented that particular room..feels the acoustics are no good. He is so used to doing the film work, he can walk into a room and tame every bit of the sonics, from 10hz to the top, in practically seconds. He figures out the room in seconds and can implement the solution in minutes (average size rooms). This is what film work taught him, where an hour on an expensive set can easily cost as much as $50-100k. If he wasn't capable of that, he would not be on the film set.

Quote:
you'll have to explain how a 50Hz pressure wave over 22' peak to peak can be significantly altered by EQ over the distance between one's ears - say 6".

Very simple Jan! What you describe would be true outdoors or in a gymnasium etc. But in a domestic size room there are multiple competing reflections coming from many different directions, all having traveled different distances to arrive at each ear. The proof is in the response measurements in THIS article.

The article above was written for a different purpose, but it proves my point quite nicely.

--Ethan

Quote:
You cannot, and should not, find an acoustical company in the phone book, and then have them 'do a room' for you.

Not just the "phone book" guys but plenty of better known firms too. I've cleaned up after a bunch of "pros" that charge big bux and do a lousy job. Look at the beautiful home theaters in almost every HT type magazine, and you can tell just by looking which ones sound terrible. Walls covered entirely with too-thin absorption, and not a bass trap in sight. Yes, the really expensive rooms have treatment hidden behind fabric walls. And they all look terrific! But most of them have 1-inch rigid fiberglass and no bass trapping. Or inadequate bass trapping. What's sad is the people who paid all that money don't even know how much better it should be. They clap their hands, hear total deadness, then brag to their friends how great their theater sounds.

--Ethan

Ethan, I must be especially dense today because the article doesn't explain what I thought you said in this post;

Quote:
First, I'm not big on room EQ at all. Maybe below 40 Hz it can help a little. But bass response changes so much over small distances that any change for the better at one place risks making things worse even a few inches away. Such as your other ear.

To clarify, you were not suggesting that EQ is responsible for the difference we might perceive over a six inch distance. Right?

But what I'm seeing in the article is consistent with what I have experienced and not what I thought you said. I can walk through a standing wave null point and hear the dramatic shift in level that a 1' distance makes. But that is walking front to back in the room, in other words, from the speaker end to the listening end of the room. I've not heard as dramatic a difference walking side to side in a room which is how my ears are situated in the listening position. Walking side to side gives a more evenly distributed bass response where only in corners have I heard such a large difference in bass quantity and quality over such a small distance. Now, obviously, I don't think most of us set our listening position in a corner. Is this "ear to ear" (side to side) difference something peculiar to certain room dimensions or room shape? Or have I just misread your post?

Do we have to smoke what your smoking in order to hear it?

In a few months I will be introducing, to a select number of individuals, a tweak that will be an order of magnitude greater than Buddha's. My partner and I have evaluated this in environments that would make your jaws drop. Underwater, on shuttle flights, and in recent combat situations in the middle east. And in the toughest environment of all: feature films.

Quote:
No, no smoking of anything is required to bask in the glory of these tweaks.

But we can smoke if we want to, and that will make it even better, yes?

Jan,

Quote:
To clarify, you were not suggesting that EQ is responsible for the difference we might perceive over a six inch distance. Right?

Right, my point is that the raw response in a room varies a lot over small distances all by itself. So trying to flatten the response using EQ is doomed to fail because any improvement you make at one place will be less, or even worse, even a few inches away. Such as at your other ear.

Quote:
But that is walking front to back in the room, in other words, from the speaker end to the listening end of the room. I've not heard as dramatic a difference walking side to side

The response changes a lot side to side too. Here's a graph showing exactly that in my 25 by 16 foot living room:

And here's the text that accompanies that graph:

"This graph was taken at the listening position, and shows the change in response when moving from two feet left of center through two feet right of center."

Complete article here:

http://www.realtraps.com/art_modes.htm

--Ethan

..."glitter in the darkNESS BY the the Tannhauser GateS."

Get yer Rutger Hauer lines straight iffin' yer gonna make fun a me.

Speaking of that, Bladerunner was finally released, today, in HD. Look up the saga on that one.

As for tweaks, go to the Goo systems page and look at 'gooeys'. (important disclaimer: I am an owner of the company, but I make just about squat when a set of them is sold. We were told they are too damn cheap, but hey, I'm not into robbery, or more specifically, I'm not interested in bullshitting people)

And Buddha, if you do indeed live by the handle..then you must read the book(s) by Micheal Newton, the first being 'Journey of Souls.'

damn. I just bought the new HD-DVD version of Bladerunner. I go the line wrong. Whoops!

AS always I just loved Keith Howard's article in the Jan 2008 issue. Anti-Node. Active room treatments. Agree or disagree with his ideas and methods, they always make me really think and question my audio beliefs. I would like to see some of us Philes out here experiment with this idea.
Maybe instead of applying EQ to the main speakers, one could apply inverse EQ to corner subs to absorb room mode peaks. Of course I can realize that there are a number of difficulties with doing this, but one must start somewhere.

Has anyone built passive absorbers using multiple passive cone or panel devices similar to those used in bass speakers?

Quote:
Maybe instead of applying EQ to the main speakers, one could apply inverse EQ to corner subs to absorb room mode peaks.

If only. It doesn't work as I explained above in detail.

Quote:
Has anyone built passive absorbers using multiple passive cone or panel devices similar to those used in bass speakers?

Yes, Bag End, a speaker manufacturer that caters to the pro audio market, has a device they call the E-Trap. It's very expensive, but seems to work within the restrictions of all electronic correction. That is, I'm sure the response and ringing improvements are highly positional.

--Ethan

Quote:

If only. It doesn't work as I explained above in detail.

If you are refering to it not working because of your response about nulls and peaks changing relitive to listener position, I must remind you that these nulls and peaks are caused by the room modes and that an effective correction method would solve this problem.
If you are refering to the fact that the laws of physics are there to screw us no matter what, then you are completely correct.

"The laws of physics" are the proposed considerations, based on the theories, or postulations of physics. They were never touted as a law by any physicist that postulated them. This, the textbooks and pundits seem to fail in remembering. That they are true in most instances, is correct.

I hate to be nitpicky, but it is vitally important to remember that they are not laws. Any other position impales innovation and free thinking on the throne of impossibility, which is wholly the wrong direction for physics. If you find yourself always thinking of them as laws, I implore you to free your mind, and try and catch yourself every time you do it. This is how one spurs new thinking and innovation. Thinking of them as immutable laws, locks one's thinking in specific pathways and ways, which fundamentally destroys the very idea of innovation.

In acoustics, fixing the barn door after the animal has escaped, is the fundamental aspect of electronic based acoustic room correction. In that specific and 'fundamental to remember' point, lies the alarmingly large Achilles heel of active correction systems.

Physically fixing the room, via mechanical and or acoustic correction......is the only thing that truly works.

It's like some guy saying , well, I shot him..but only a little bit. What I mean, is the problem is still 100% intact, with electronic correction.

All that is being done, is that the problematic frequencies, etc..are being manipulated at the source emission point, which has nothing to do with room correction.

With a small bit of mental analysis, and teaching oneself what to listen for - one can learn to hear this, and in the final analysis, it fails, IMHO. It's like anything else. Once you hear the flaw, you can't go back to being blind.

Make no mistake, in situations where acoustical treatment in the mechanistic sense cannot be easily enacted, or the audiophile has to try and deal with the spousal factors or other limitations, electronic compensation of the room can help alleviate the impression of the problem.

IMHO, it does nothing for critical and real desires for correct audio listening rooms. It's a nice idea for a quick fix by and from an armchair acoustician, but has little to do with being a proper solution.

I'm not supposed to be harsh on other folks and the product they produce. I'm not. Electronic room correction has a space at the table. But not for the truly serious audio rooms and situations.

I'm just trying to be sure that people don't jump up and get involved in proclamations about hobby horses that don't exist.

Quote:
If you are refering to it not working because of your response about nulls and peaks changing relitive to listener position, I must remind you that these nulls and peaks are caused by the room modes and that an effective correction method would solve this problem.

Let's assume an effective bass trap having a surface area of x size. Further assuming 100 percent absorption over that surface area, we can easily calculate the sabins of absorption based on the area. A passive absorber can have no more than 100 percent absorption for a given size. This is the main problem.

Now, an active "absorber" can have more than 100 percent absorption using trickery. But as soon as you use such trickery, that's when the improvement becomes positional. Versus being made better everywhere in the room as happens with passive traps. So it's a lose-lose proposition. If the device is set for no more than 100 percent "absorption" it cannot absorb enough to do much because at best it's only the size of the largest woofer you can manage. What's that - maybe 15 inches in diameter? And if you aim for more than 100 percent counter-wave canceling, you also lose because the bass is now made worse in some locations.

--Ethan

Quote:
Physically fixing the room, via mechanical and or acoustic correction......is the only thing that truly works.

Hey, something we agree on!

--Ethan

We may have to check ID's at the door! (Fake ones acceptable!)
Mike

Quote:
Physically fixing the room, via mechanical and or acoustic correction......is the only thing that truly works.

Please enlighten me about the difference between mechanical and acoustic room correction methods.

Quote:

Please enlighten me about the difference between mechanical and acoustic room correction methods.

Not my job. Apologies. Call it Lore.

Quote:

Quote:

Please enlighten me about the difference between mechanical and acoustic room correction methods.

Not my job. Apologies. Call it Lore.

Not your job, but is your passion.
Yes I know that an active tweak will probably create more problems then it will solve, but what has happened to the try it and see attitude that used to exist in HiFi?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Please enlighten me about the difference between mechanical and acoustic room correction methods.

Not my job. Apologies. Call it Lore.

Not your job, but is your passion.
Yes I know that an active tweak will probably create more problems then it will solve, but what has happened to the try it and see attitude that used to exist in HiFi?

I am a manufacturer. I have already overstepped my self-imposed bounds on a public forum where the end user and manufacturer can -and do- mix.

It's a point of ethics and morals. If this point is lost, then we get into the kind of mayhem that serves no one, in the end.

IMHO, the forum exists as a place where enthusiasts can meet, debate, speak, etc..and also talk directly with manufacturers, experts, etc.

When these boundaries can be blurred, this can result in inadverdent..or sadly..even intentional self promotion or denigration of others and their efforts.

One must be careful. One way to put it is, all the enthusiast can do is keep a head on their shoulders and hope the given person, who is in the business, keeps their integrity intact.

The problem arises in what is becoming an old adage, which is: "It can be difficult to get a man to see an alternative view or basic truths, when having a paycheck depends on him living as if another position is true." Telling the difference between any given group of people, or positions, can sometimes be tricky.

It isn't that cut and dried, and never will be.

Fair enough?

Quote:
Fair enough?

I welcome all and any input. It is my responsibility to filter the data and draw my own conclusions. The more varied the sources (consumers, manufactures, designers or reviewers) the better the overall picture presented.
Being up front about your bias is a useful bit when reading responses. Ethan is a regular contributor and also has a personal business interest here, but since he is open about this I have no problem with that. All of us suffer from various forms of myopia. The more diverse the community, the better our eye sight becomes.