• Welcome to The Audio Annex! If you have any trouble logging in or signing up, please contact 'admin - at - theaudioannex.com'. Enjoy!
  • HTTPS (secure web browser connection) has been enabled - just add "https://" to the start of the URL in your address bar, e.g. "https://theaudioannex.com/forum/"
  • Congratulations! If you're seeing this notice, it means you're connected to the new server. Go ahead and post as usual, enjoy!
  • I've just upgraded the forum software to Xenforo 2.0. Please let me know if you have any problems with it. I'm still working on installing styles... coming soon.

Room acoustics, too esoteric for audiophiles

TitaniumTroy

Well-Known Member
I sent an email to today to Steve Guttenberg who writes a column over at cnet, called the Auddiophiliac. I asked if he could do some articles on room acoustic treatments.

"I would love to see more articles on room acoustic treatments, for instance bass traps, absorption vs diffusion etc. Also which ones work the best with planer type speakers, as I have Magnepan 3.6's. Diffusion has greatly helped the clarity of my system, by taming the back wall, and is still a work in progress.
>
> I am not one into audio tweaks but one I liked is using wood panels on the inside of Magnepans. As kind of like a folded back wing to lower the bass limits, currently it is as big as my 3.6.The difference was dramatic. It also helped when using phantom mode for home theatre, replacing my center channel. My room is rather narrow, which is why I folded the wing back, I do not have a wing on the outside due to space constraints. Plus I think that might interfere with the diffuse sound but I would like to test it out.
>
> Thanks for your time."
>
And here is the response:

Room treatments are a little too esoteric for the Audiophiliac blog

Besides, most audiophiles, including myself, don't have anywhere near the understanding of acoustics to make truly meaningful improvements changes, yes, improvements, no.

Trained pros aren't much better, ever hear how many tried and failed to fix the acoustic problems at Lincoln Center?

I'm glad to hear you've had success with your Maggies, best, Steve

Well it seems we have a lot of esoteric types around here with ( "changes"), and those audio gurus are not worth a fart in a hurricane. Go figure :eusa-whistle: :violence-torch:
 

Rope

Well-Known Member
Famous
That's an excellent example of how to reply when you don't want to answer the question. Steve Guttenberg can't possibly be that naive, or can he? I'd like to see that response posted in all of the A/V mags, then Steve could wipe the egg off his face and his readers could see what he really thinks is important.

Ask him if he thinks EQ is the answer, can't wait to hear that reply.

Rope
 

topper

Well-Known Member
Rope said:
That's an excellent example of how to reply when you don't want to answer the question. Steve Guttenberg can't possibly be that naive, or can he? I'd like to see that response posted in all of the A/V mags, then Steve could wipe the egg off his face and his readers could see what he really thinks is important.

Ask him if he thinks EQ is the answer, can't wait to hear that reply.
*****
Simplest form . . . . Guttenberg's full of shit!

* * :liar:
 

Alien

Active Member
His reply was actually rather kind of condescending...maybe he should have referred to a dictionary before using the word "esoteric." He makes his remark sound like he thinks his readers are dumb.
 

Flint

Dog Faced Pony Soldier
Superstar
Alien said:
His reply was actually rather kind of condescending...maybe he should have referred to a dictionary before using the word "esoteric." He makes his remark sound like he thinks his readers are dumb.
He is talking about audiophiles who believe in his reviews of HDMI cables. If someone believes there is an appreciable difference between four different $1,000 a foot HDMI cables, then perhaps he is on to something.
 

Haywood

Well-Known Member
Famous
IMHO, anything said by someone who espouses $1000 HDMI cables is inherently questionable anyway.
 

TitaniumTroy

Well-Known Member
Instead of "esoteric" maybe he should have said aesthetic, which to me is the real reason his type of audiophiles do not like room treatments. They think diffusors and bass traps detract from their precious veiw of their listening room, or the dreaded WAF. His type of audiophool is really a poser/tool, all show and no go snobbery.

Oh and by the way, what does that Flint guy know. He sounds like one of those eggheads Guttenberg mentions, who can't figure out how to fix Lincoln Center's acoustic problems. :ugeek: JK Flint.
 

Razz

Well-Known Member
wow... his response is a little surprising to me. Wait a min, not a little... VERY.

I guess we are all just dreaming up our "improvements" here.
 

Alien

Active Member
He apparently thinks basic acoustics is too complicated...shoot, more often than not people make their room sound better on accident.
 

Flint

Dog Faced Pony Soldier
Superstar
I happen to believe basic acoustic principles are extremely simple. What appears to be complicated is trying to fully understand why the basics make such a difference.

Considering the amount of mental energy that goes into justifying the cost of just one high end audio cable (the illogical terms and complex theories supporting the sound of cables), well, if they can put that nonsense into their heads and make sense of it, why can't they comprehend the very simple physics of sound propogation in a room.

With light this stuff is easy, you can see how a huge mirror on the side wall can confuse what you are watching in front of you when the mirror image in the corner of your eye is distracting you from the main TV, so why not comprehend that with sound?
 

soundhound

Well-Known Member
I think it all boils down to:

Acoustic treatments = Ugly In The Wife's Living Room

And given that the majority of American men are totally pussy whipped......well......no acoustic treatments......
 

Rope

Well-Known Member
Famous
So, to summerize, Steve Guttenberg is pussy whipped, and is terrified of loosing half of everything he currently, or in the future, may own.

Rope
 

soundhound

Well-Known Member
Rope said:
So, to summerize, Steve Guttenberg is pussy whipped, and is terrified of loosing half of everything he currently, or in the future, may own.

Rope
If he is married to, or has a girlfriend who he thinks can beat the shit out of him, then ,yes.
 

goaliechris

Active Member
Flint said:
I happen to believe basic acoustic principles are extremely simple. What appears to be complicated is trying to fully understand why the basics make such a difference.

Considering the amount of mental energy that goes into justifying the cost of just one high end audio cable (the illogical terms and complex theories supporting the sound of cables), well, if they can put that nonsense into their heads and make sense of it, why can't they comprehend the very simple physics of sound propogation in a room.

With light this stuff is easy, you can see how a huge mirror on the side wall can confuse what you are watching in front of you when the mirror image in the corner of your eye is distracting you from the main TV, so why not comprehend that with sound?

This reminds me of my treatments. I thought this stuff was hard until I read a series of posts you wrote over at S&V awhile back. Literally, just have someone move a mirror against the wall and when you can see the speaker, hang an acoustic panel. Repeat for other speaker. Done. It was a noticeable improvement in my old house (still have yet to hang the panels in my new home but this reminded me to get to it). It was so easy, even I could do it :laughing:

I guess there is more money in uber-expensive cables, cones, and wood blocks.... :?
 

Alien

Active Member
goaliechris said:
Flint said:
I happen to believe basic acoustic principles are extremely simple. What appears to be complicated is trying to fully understand why the basics make such a difference.

Considering the amount of mental energy that goes into justifying the cost of just one high end audio cable (the illogical terms and complex theories supporting the sound of cables), well, if they can put that nonsense into their heads and make sense of it, why can't they comprehend the very simple physics of sound propogation in a room.

With light this stuff is easy, you can see how a huge mirror on the side wall can confuse what you are watching in front of you when the mirror image in the corner of your eye is distracting you from the main TV, so why not comprehend that with sound?

This reminds me of my treatments. I thought this stuff was hard until I read a series of posts you wrote over at S&V awhile back. Literally, just have someone move a mirror against the wall and when you can see the speaker, hang an acoustic panel. Repeat for other speaker. Done. It was a noticeable improvement in my old house (still have yet to hang the panels in my new home but this reminded me to get to it). It was so easy, even I could do it :laughing:

I guess there is more money in uber-expensive cables, cones, and wood blocks.... :?
I used a standing full length mirror and a laser pointer. It takes only one person and it can show you how large of an area your panel will be effective for.
 

Flint

Dog Faced Pony Soldier
Superstar
I like using a lamp at the speaker position in a darkened room. Then you can see where the reflected light hits the seating area and know exactly how much of the wall needs to be treated.
 

malsackj

Well-Known Member
When using the lamp to model the speaker is the speaker output 360 degree like the lamp?

would a directional lamp with a 30 degree spot pointed at the seat give a better perspective?

Would this be a better pespective of a horn and higher frequencies, including toe in?
 

Towen7

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Moderator
You need a barrier directly between the lamp and the seating position. You only want reflected light to fall on the seat.
 
Top