Who's had a listening room built - what would you do differently?

[Purité Audio]

You really need to acoustically measure before you apply any trapping, shallow foam will not attenuate any bass but mids and higher frequencies, and it is possible to overdamp one frequency while leaving the real problems ( usually bass) untouched.
Keith

 

[h.g.]

I did look at this and in fact, I'm still torn about it and it's still an option.

Golden ratios help more evenly distribute the lowest room modes and this can be helpful if the room has little acoustic room treatment. It becomes less relevant if you use multi-subs and a significant amount of room treatment to control these lowest modes. It is a plus but if things like, for example, maximizing room height make the ratios a bit less golden I would suggest taking the maximum room height.

 

[darrenyeats]

You really need to acoustically measure before you apply any trapping, shallow foam will not attenuate any bass but mids and higher frequencies, and it is possible to overdamp one frequency while leaving the real problems ( usually bass) untouched.
Keith

In my room at my listening position the bass modes' effect is completely dominated by a narrow, low 30s Hz resonant spike. I have two fridge-freezer sized tunable Helmholtz resonators tuned by measurement, at a correct boundary. This didn't solve the spike, it mitigated it. General trapping would indeed not be helpful for that. Even typical "bass traps" typically absorb further up and less deep bass, so could actually make my resonant spike overall even more prominent.

 

[PhilCTTE]

@John Kennedy
In regards bass traps , as mentioned, I haven't measure my room nodes and pressure levels yet, so I haven't looked into them. Acoustic fields make diffuser boxes with angled slats filled with a carbon material. If I recall the size and depth of these are not stealth like and look like small bookcases. About 12" deep I think.
I did have a look at a company who have a mechanical membrane system which looked interesting. I'll dig out details later.
Once I have finished painting and decorating my room , put the carpets in and furniture. I will start to measure to see where the trouble spots are.

 

[Sean K]

@John Kennedy
In regards bass traps , as mentioned, I haven't measure my room nodes and pressure levels yet, so I haven't looked into them. Acoustic fields make diffuser boxes with angled slats filled with a carbon material. If I recall the size and depth of these are not stealth like and look like small bookcases. About 12" deep I think.
I did have a look at a company who have a mechanical membrane system which looked interesting. I'll dig out details later.
Once I have finished painting and decorating my room , put the carpets in and furniture. I will start to measure to see where the trouble spots are.

I misunderstood what was in your second photo. What are those wall-mounted structures?

 

[Mike Reed]

The idea of separate circuits for the hifi v other stuff is a good one. Luckily, my mate, a sparky, is also into his hifi, so I can request various wiring options without getting funny looks.

There are various stages and degrees to which you can install a separate supply. Ignoring a separate incoming phase (pie in the sky for most) and sticking a massive regenerator onto each radial, you can:

connect a radial in to the existing c.u. and terminate with a hydra-like configuration of unswitched sockets, or

run more than one radial to a separate c.u. with individual RCBOs for earth fault segregation, meaning fewer sockets shared at the hifi end, or

go the whole hog and have a circuit for each piece of kit (+spare) with its own c.u. and individual RCBOs (with or without individual single sockets at the hifi end).

The degree to which an improvement in dynamics will ensue depends upon your kit, your incoming supply and your cabling/termination requirements. I've found that, whereas there are no sonic downsides whatsoever, improvements in convenience, safety and freedom from domestic appliance interference make it a worthwhile investment. That it invariably improves the overall s.q. on one's system for relatively minimal outlay makes it a worthwhile choice, especially for those owner-occupiers refurbishing/preparing listening rooms.

For Naim owners it's a simple no-brainer.

 

[h.g.]

In my room at my listening position the bass modes' effect is completely dominated by a narrow, low 30s Hz resonant spike. I have two fridge-freezer sized tunable Helmholtz resonators tuned by measurement, at a correct boundary. This didn't solve the spike, it mitigated it. General trapping would indeed not be helpful for that. Even typical "bass traps" typically absorb further up and less deep bass, so could actually make my resonant spike overall even more prominent.

If you want to flatten the mode then use a suitable arrangement of multiple subs. It is beyond me why anyone would consider anything else if they are investing the time and money to design and build a listening room. Is it perhaps that people don't understand how multiple subs can knock out some of the troublesome low frequency room modes?

At that low a frequency to get effective passive absorption one may have to look at designing the walls to be damped resonators at the appropriate frequencies. This would provide a large area and not be particularly intrusive.

 

[PhilCTTE]

I misunderstood what was in your second photo. What are those wall-mounted structures?

Oh I see haha ... They are speaker boxes for my surround sound

 

[Purité Audio]

In my room at my listening position the bass modes' effect is completely dominated by a narrow, low 30s Hz resonant spike. I have two fridge-freezer sized tunable Helmholtz resonators tuned by measurement, at a correct boundary. This didn't solve the spike, it mitigated it. General trapping would indeed not be helpful for that. Even typical "bass traps" typically absorb further up and less deep bass, so could actually make my resonant spike overall even more prominent.

As HG recommended you could look at multiple subs but far simpler would be a little judicious EQ.
Keith

 

[Cesare]

My advice would be to plan for what you are likely to want to use the room for as well as a dedicated listening room ;-)

For example, are you going to suddenly decide that AV is something you want to take seriously? Consider extra cabling for projectors, or surround speakers.

Also, do consider the aspect from the room. Are you going to be listening in the mornings or the evenings - you might as well have a lovely view without the sun in your eyes when you are listening!

 

[darrenyeats]

If you want to flatten the mode then use a suitable arrangement of multiple subs. It is beyond me why anyone would consider anything else if they are investing the time and money to design and build a listening room. Is it perhaps that people don't understand how multiple subs can knock out some of the troublesome low frequency room modes?

I just sold my sub. For me, in my room, I prefer the bass without a sub! I tried the sub in many positions - the least worst was co-located with the speakers.

Some people like subs, live and let live. Not for me though.

As HG recommended you could look at multiple subs but far simpler would be a little judicious EQ.
Keith

I tried bass EQ for many years.

I just prefer not to dick around, and just try to address the source of the problem. That's the room acoustic. I can indeed see the argument when it comes to bass EQ but room correction above the bass I will never use.

I know it sounds like I'm in my 70s, but I'm actually in my 40s! Ha-ha!

 

[Purité Audio]

EQ would be addressing the room acoustic, and your sub would have worked if it had been properly integrated, i.e. telling the main speakers at which frequency to stop playing and telling the sub where to start ,correcting phase ,etc etc.
Keith

 

[Mike Reed]

I could never see the point of subs. Why not choose the speaker which gives you the frequency range and presentation you want?

Maybe simplistic, but I've always been a big speaker man in my main system, but have never felt the need to enhance smaller ones in my office or kitchen, for example.

 

[Tony L]

Electronic EQ only works by creating often pretty gross colouration (subtraction) and never forget you are making it sound "better" at one position by making it worse everywhere else in the room. Just moving the mic an inch or two gives a different result, let alone trying to get a good whole-room response. As such I'm not a fan unless either the room or system is a real turkey, and I'd prefer to swap or alter either first.

I am not alone here, to quote from Sound Recording Practice 3rd Edition (the studio geek's bible) page 218: "The fact is that rooms can not be equalised by adjusting the electrical response of the monitor system. If acoustical problems exist, their character and effect will vary according to the location within the room where they are observed. Electrical equalisation may appear to provide an improvement at one point, but the effects at other points may easily be exacerbated.".

I realise this was written prior to the proliferation of digital tools, but the fundamental acoustical laws still apply. As such I'd view it as a last resort, especially when building a dedicated room. The whole point there is to produce an environment where a good system will sound as it should without having to futz about with the frequency response.

PS Current edition of Sound Recording Practice here. It is a good book with much to interest inquisitive audiophiles.

 

[h.g.]

I just sold my sub. For me, in my room, I prefer the bass without a sub! I tried the sub in many positions - the least worst was co-located with the speakers.

Some people like subs, live and let live. Not for me though.

I tried bass EQ for many years.

I just prefer not to dick around, and just try to address the source of the problem. That's the room acoustic. I can indeed see the argument when it comes to bass EQ but room correction above the bass I will never use.

I could never see the point of subs. Why not choose the speaker which gives you the frequency range and presentation you want?

Hmmm... That looks to be a start at answering my question about understanding or not how multiple subs can work.

For those with dedicated listening rooms how many use multiple subs with separate EQ on each sub as opposed to one or no subs?

 

[darrenyeats]

Hmmm... That looks to be a start at answering my question about understanding or not how multiple subs can work.

For those with dedicated listening rooms how many use multiple subs with separate EQ on each sub as opposed to one or no subs?

I know it can even up the FR as measured from a particular listening spot, but non co-located drivers end up sounding wrong to me, including further up the crossover region. The impulse response must be all over the shop - perhaps this is why it sounds weird despite the flatter response?

EQ would be addressing the room acoustic, and your sub would have worked if it had been properly integrated, i.e. telling the main speakers at which frequency to stop playing and telling the sub where to start ,correcting phase ,etc etc.
Keith

Co-located subs like in the Grimm LS1 could work well. But according to your description they're acting like, well, a 3 way active speaker aren't they?

 

[Purité Audio]

You can make any sub, exactly like the Grimms, just another driver, but you need to use a wee processor, check out the Mini DSP site ,you can then use the same 'plug in' to EQ your room if the extra bass extension causes any problems.
Keith

 

[Tim's Dad]

Two very simple tips learnt from getting it wrong:
1) Think hard about where you will put your kit as well as the speakers and listening position. I just assumed the kit would be in the middle between the speakers but this can affect the imaging. If I was starting again I would put a big set of sockets halfway down a side wall.
2) if you have a screen that descends from the ceiling (as I do), don't go for an acoustically transparent one with tiny holes in, as you get a second image on the wall behind!

 

[PhilCTTE]

^^^ I'm just looking at doing this, but I'm told to go for the more expensive weave rather than micro perforated.

 

[Rodney gold]

For those with dedicated listening rooms how many use multiple subs with separate EQ on each sub as opposed to one or no subs?

H.G.
I have a dedicated room and used 4 SVS subs to even the bass all over the room , running my Giya G1's unfiltered.
I used a miniDSP 4x10 , Dirac and acourate and combos of those to tweak them and integrate with my G1's
I did use different EQ for each pair of subs , not individually tho , tried different delays and polarity , crossover on a sub by sub basis

Albeit distributed bass does what it says on the tin , I found my speakers more than adequate and in fact better at listening position with the subs off and just let DIRAC sort out the bass on my G1's

Bear in mind im a basshead and like it loud , to the extent of my ceiling cracking , blinds coming crashing down and my attack dog runs cowering upstairs when I play Yello..
At any rate I sold my subs to fund another devialet for a dual mono system