Who has a dedicated room?

[BugPowderDust]

My home's footprint didn't allow for a dedicated room, but I've spent a lot of time with specialists like @CORSINI Acoustic Solutions to treat the acoustics in my living room to optimise the results. You don't have to give up if you can't dedicate space to a listening environment: 

 

[AudioGeek]

2 hours ago, BugPowderDust said:

My home's footprint didn't allow for a dedicated room, but I've spent a lot of time with specialists like @CORSINI Acoustic Solutions to treat the acoustics in my living room to optimise the results. You don't have to give up if you can't dedicate space to a listening environment: 

 

 

Iam sure it sounds spectacular.

Looking at how many panels are there - did you consider redoing the walls/gyprock with better insulation/material rather than panels on wall?

[BugPowderDust]

1 hour ago, AudioGeek said:

 

Iam sure it sounds spectacular.

Looking at how many panels are there - did you consider redoing the walls/gyprock with better insulation/material rather than panels on wall?

No, I didn't. It would have been a complete removal of the walls and ceiling to do that and cost wise wouldn't have been much different I'd wager. I'm also not keen on living in a house going through that kind of ongoing renovation work.

[LogicprObe]

13 hours ago, Kirby66 said:

Back when I was doing the research I found that there is a distinct difference between 'sound proofing' and sound treatment. If I remember correctly sound proofing a single listening room can be detrimental to sound quality as the pressure of the waves needs an escape or something like that.

 

Sure.

That's why they make recording studios with no parallel walls, if possible.

Whether it's treatment or proofing, it's always about absorption of the sound.

Treatment is about certain frequencies caused by the parallel walls.

This is a room node/standing wave.

Proofing attenuates/absorbs all frequencies equally (supposedly).

Most sound proof rooms still require a bit of 'treatment' but you are starting from a much better position.

[almikel]

On 10/02/2025 at 6:16 AM, Kirby66 said:

Back when I was doing the research I found that there is a distinct difference between 'sound proofing' and sound treatment. If I remember correctly sound proofing a single listening room can be detrimental to sound quality as the pressure of the waves needs an escape or something like that.

Agreed - sound proofing/isolation is a different goal to achieving great "in room" sound using acoustic treatment - and sound proofing a room (depending on method) can make it way harder to achieve great "in room" sound, requiring loads more treatment, if the sound proofing method keeps all the sound inside the room bouncing around taking ages to decay.

 

The classic example I refer to all the time is band rehearsal rooms with rigid besser block walls between rehearsal rooms - good isolation, but terrible "in room" sound as the bass bounces around forever...and of course they love to put egg crate foam on the walls, which soaks up treble making the "in room" sound even worse  

 

For great "in room" sound, you want fairly even decay across the frequency range, accepting some increase in decay times in the bottom end are inevitable as we don't live in tents, plus reasonable management of room modes and speaker boundary interference response (SBIR) as appropriate via speaker/listening position, treatment and EQ.

 

Current building practices for sound proofing/isolation using multiple layers of Gyprock with Greenglue between, whisper clips, offset studs, insulation etc etc enable good isolation and good compliance of the room boundaries to absorb lower frequencies in the room (ie the room boundaries behave as a membrane bass trap) compared to the bass bouncing off rigid walls.

A room built like this will require vastly less treatment to manage the bottom end compared to a concrete bunker, for a similar level of sound proofing/isolation.

 

On 10/02/2025 at 8:01 PM, LogicprObe said:

 

Sure.

That's why they make recording studios with no parallel walls, if possible.

I'm pretty sure Abbey Road, Muscle Shoals, and Sun Studio haven't bothered with "no parallel walls" - and they've produced some amazing albums.

On 10/02/2025 at 8:01 PM, LogicprObe said:

Whether it's treatment or proofing, it's always about absorption of the sound.

Not really - sound proofing/isolation is about stopping sound getting in/out - a concrete bunker has excellent sound proofing/isolation, but terrible "in room" sound.

On 10/02/2025 at 8:01 PM, LogicprObe said:

Treatment is about certain frequencies caused by the parallel walls.

This is a room node/standing wave.

Treatment is about dealing with whatever problem frequencies your room has in combination with placement and EQ.

 

I agree parallel walls can exacerbate "slap" echo (also known as flutter echo) - easily demonstrated with the usual "clap test", and hearing the clap take some time to decay - but slap echo is higher in frequency than the modal range of the room (ie the range where room modes/nodes/standing waves are heard) because as you go higher in frequency, the modes all stack up/get closer/bunch up, and you're above the frequency where individual modes matter.

 

Slap echo is easily ameliorated with relatively thin absorption placed asymmetrically on opposite walls - I wish more restaurants with too many hard surfaces would consider some treatment to make table conversation easier!

 

Room modes occur when any of the dimensions of the room are any multiple of the wavelength/2.

The primary modes for a typical parallel walled room will be the length, width and height modes.

If the length of the room is 5m, the primary length mode is:

5m = wavelength/2

wavelength = 10m

speed of sound is 344m/s

Velocity = frequency x wavelength

344 = frequency x 10

primary length mode frequency = 34.4 Hz

 

A 34Hz room mode is a very low frequency to attempt to manage with treatment - I'd use EQ instead.

The problem with non-parallel walls is you'll still get room modes, but lots more of them which can't be as easily managed with EQ.

 

On 10/02/2025 at 8:01 PM, LogicprObe said:

Proofing attenuates/absorbs all frequencies equally (supposedly).

Sound proofing/isolation doesn't necessarily absorb any frequencies - it may reflect them all back into the room.

 

On 10/02/2025 at 8:01 PM, LogicprObe said:

Most sound proof rooms still require a bit of 'treatment' but you are starting from a much better position.

Only if the sound proofing/isolation design of the room is using materials and construction techniques to both prevent sound transmission (including flanking paths) and absorb sound energy (eg multiple layers of Gyprock, Greenglue, whisper clips etc.).

Rooms constructed with eg double brick or besser block, slab floors, slab ceilings etc - will have good sound proofing/isolation (assuming flanking paths are dealt with), but will require significantly more treatment to manage all the sound being reflected within the room - a much worse starting position from the perspective of achieving great "in room" sound.

 

Mike

[givita_burl]

Don't have a purpose built room but it is, sort of, dedicated to music (it shares function as an office space). I would rather have music in a shared space but 'why do you need all that stuff'?

Anyhow, we are upgrading some windows to double glazing, including the one in this room. I would appreciate advice on the best configuration - at a reasonable premium - for the glazing as this is a once off opportunity. I know there are options for thicker panes and acoustic glass but the question is 'how far to go'? I also have neighbours in a normal, detached house.

The front wall is ~3.75m with the speakers flanking a 1.8w x 1.5m window. One side wall is gyprock/brick veneer, the other standard internal wall.

Any suggestions?

[Peterbean]

Hi mate

i think the best thing is soft curtains/blinds .

glass is going to be reflective but you want sunlight. You only need to draw them in serious listening. 
Symetry is important too -  gyprock and paintings on canvas, and soft furniture are absorbent, and good in a domestic listening space.  Windows, hard furniture hard floors, pictures behind glass are all reflective, hence boomy . However i sometimes wonder if hifi gear is designed to compensate for that 

 

[givita_burl]

Trying to manage those things with a little flexibility. Side wall are used for storage of CDs and records (space which I need to utilise) which provides a measure of diffraction and the wall behind is an open wardrobe that does not present a flat surface.

The curtains have a positive effect: the trick is trying to find the right balance between reflectivity and absorption of the glass and which treatments/combination of panes achieve that balance. I imagine that trying to keep sound in, in order to not trouble the neighbours, would introduce more challenges than blocking the entry of external sound.

[almikel]

Hi Givita,

 

On 13/02/2025 at 6:38 AM, givita_burl said:

Anyhow, we are upgrading some windows to double glazing, including the one in this room. I would appreciate advice on the best configuration - at a reasonable premium - for the glazing as this is a once off opportunity. I know there are options for thicker panes and acoustic glass but the question is 'how far to go'? I also have neighbours in a normal, detached house.

I have no experience with installing double glazing myself.

The only experience of double glazing I have is in friends' apartments with double glazing in CBD environments where double glazing makes a significant improvement to the ingress of traffic noise from busy streets.

 

In these cases "flanking noise" was also well managed! ie noise paths other than the windows - eg sound coming through the walls/floor/ceiling.

 

You can't achieve a good sound proofing/isolation outcome from just installing double glazing, unless the other noise paths/flanking paths are also dealt with.

 

1 hour ago, givita_burl said:

I imagine that trying to keep sound in, in order to not trouble the neighbours, would introduce more challenges than blocking the entry of external sound.

Not from the perspective of sound proofing/isolation - in/out they work the same across your room boundaries.

 

12 hours ago, Peterbean said:

Windows, hard furniture hard floors, pictures behind glass are all reflective, hence boomy

Hi Peter,

 

I accept surfaces like you describe are reflective at various frequencies, but "boomy" implies reflections at lower frequencies.

Glass is a great bass trap - it reflects treble back into the room, but lets the bass pass straight through.

A room with Gyprock on studs with insulation behind in front of brick veneer will have a better bass response than double brick, but similar top end response - the compliance of the Gyprock absorbs lower frequencies, but like glass it will reflect higher frequencies back into the room.

 

13 hours ago, Peterbean said:

However i sometimes wonder if hifi gear is designed to compensate for that 

New HiFi gear with EQ capability - or even better "auto" EQ capability is absolutely designed to compensate for room issues.

 

Coming back to dedicated rooms - I have one - it has lots of absorption treatment and EQ.

It's lightly constructed so all the low bass leaks out 

 

I run a sub, and I would always recommend running a sub (or multiple subs).

IMHO EQ/DSP is essential for good integration between sub/s and main speakers.

 

Mike

[givita_burl]

Hi Mike,

 

Not chasing sound-proofing for the room per se, just an opportunity to improve sound attenuation. Sound will follow the path of least resistance and having non-insulated, standard construction wall and timber floors won't help. However, other than the size of the glazed surface, the much improved uPVC frames and seals that come with double glazing will help. Maybe it's time to explore adding some insulation as well (and renewing that in the roof cavity).

 

6 hours ago, almikel said:

Not from the perspective of sound proofing/isolation - in/out they work the same across your room boundaries.

I understand there is a difference here, depending on the construction choice. Thicker and/or laminated panels will reduce transmissible sound in both directions whereas acoustic glass will have a coating that primarily(?) reflects sound. It will also reduce sound transmission to an extent in both directions but will have an in/out bias depending on which surface is coated.

For reasons both Steve (@Peterbean) and yourself mention, and the cost of specially formulated glass, I am inclined to the more standard solution of thicker and/or laminated panels. If the window were on the rear wall, the bass trap attribute would simplify the consideration.

 

6 hours ago, almikel said:

I run a sub, and I would always recommend running a sub (or multiple subs).

IMHO EQ/DSP is essential for good integration between sub/s and main speakers.

I still intend to run a sub (the one 'over there' in the box) but am conscious that space and room flow is a real limitation, and dialing it in will require patience. On the latter, I don't know whether using a DEQX unit will yield more than it might detract by being inserted into a good signal chain.

[Satanica]

10 hours ago, almikel said:

New HiFi gear with EQ capability - or even better "auto" EQ capability is absolutely designed to compensate for room issues.

As I'm sure you know, speakers that are designed to control directivity are designed to compensate for room/reflection issues. Speakers such as Dipole, Cardioid, large horns. Here's a relatively new  speaker design that tightly controls sound radiation in the vertical plane to limit floor and ceiling reflections.

Edited February 15 by Satanica

[LogicprObe]

 

I couldn't be bothered quoting but in regard to Abbey Road studios and such, they are much, much larger than the average listening room and you can see in the videos that they used 'treatment'!

 

SHEESH!

[almikel]

On 15/02/2025 at 9:23 PM, LogicprObe said:

 

I couldn't be bothered quoting but in regard to Abbey Road studios and such, they are much, much larger than the average listening room and you can see in the videos that they used 'treatment'!

 

SHEESH!

I agree lots of studio tracking rooms (the room where artists perform) can be much larger than the average listening room, and they usually deploy some sort of acoustic treatment.

Studio control rooms can be similarly sized or smaller than our listening rooms, and also usually have some acoustic treatment applied...that wasn't my point...

On 10/02/2025 at 8:01 PM, LogicprObe said:

That's why they make recording studios with no parallel walls, if possible.

My point was the likes of Abbey Road, Muscle Shoals, and Sun Studio haven't built tracking or control rooms with non-parallel walls - because it's way more expensive with questionable benefit.

 

Sure there are plenty of studios built with non-parallel walls - but the vast majority have parallel walls and manage acoustics accordingly.

 

Mike

[almikel]

On 15/02/2025 at 6:42 AM, givita_burl said:

Not chasing sound-proofing for the room per se, just an opportunity to improve sound attenuation. Sound will follow the path of least resistance and having non-insulated, standard construction wall and timber floors won't help.

Agreed - if your goal is to reduce sound leakage, ie reduce impact to neighbours/other house occupants.

 

If your goal is to achieve the best "in room" sound - all sound leaking from the room is the sound not being reflected/reverberated within the room needing to be managed with treatment.

IMHO leaky rooms are vastly easier to treat than rigid/reflective rooms when the goal is great "in room" sound.

 

My room is lightly constructed - all the low bass leaks out rather than needing to be absorbed in the room.

A few bands of EQ cut is all I need in the bottom end to manage the bass below what the absorption in my room soaks up.

 

On 15/02/2025 at 6:42 AM, givita_burl said:

but will have an in/out bias depending on which surface is coated.

Maybe if there's some physics I'm not understanding. but typically there won't be any in/out bias.

 

Mike

[almikel]

On 15/02/2025 at 10:38 AM, Satanica said:

As I'm sure you know, speakers that are designed to control directivity are designed to compensate for room/reflection issues. Speakers such as Dipole, Cardioid, large horns. Here's a relatively new  speaker design that tightly controls sound radiation in the vertical plane to limit floor and ceiling reflections.

that's an awesome speaker!

[givita_burl]

Thanks Mike,

 

I think I'll be selfish by prioritising in room sound (but still be considerate of neighbours). That suggests not reducing the glass transmissibility too much, other than too attenuate unwanted exterior sounds.

 

5 hours ago, almikel said:

Maybe if there's some physics I'm not understanding. but typically there won't be any in/out bias.

As I understand it, the acoustic coating will be directionally more or less reflective, depending on which surface is coated. If the surface facing outward is coated, it will predominately reflect sound from that direction and vice versa (but I have no idea as to how much).

[campo007]

On 11/11/2024 at 9:39 PM, wen said:

This is my mofi phono with cut concrete block and a crystal on top,I placed a broken antique bottle neck with cover to mute the yellow light, now using an if zen with same setup

What does the crystal do? 

[wen]

I think it has the same effect that the polariser did under Brockie's hood

[AccuTidal]

I came across this thread and wanted to share my own experience with my construction project.

I built an outdoor building in the backyard, creating a spacious audio room measuring 10 meters by 6 meters. From the architectural design to the actual construction, the entire process turned out to be much more affordable than purchasing a set of speakers or a high-end DAC or server these days.
 

 

 

The building process took 12 months from start to finish. Every drop of sweat and moments of stress have been rewarded as time moves forward.

 

Thanks for viewing! 

[campo007]

1 hour ago, AccuTidal said:

I came across this thread and wanted to share my own experience with my construction project.

I built an outdoor building in the backyard, creating a spacious audio room measuring 10 meters by 6 meters. From the architectural design to the actual construction, the entire process turned out to be much more affordable than purchasing a set of speakers or a high-end DAC or server these days.
 

 

 

The building process took 12 months from start to finish. Every drop of sweat and moments of stress have been rewarded as time moves forward.

 

Thanks for viewing! 

Grouse. 

[LogicprObe]

4 hours ago, AccuTidal said:

I came across this thread and wanted to share my own experience with my construction project.

I built an outdoor building in the backyard, creating a spacious audio room measuring 10 meters by 6 meters. From the architectural design to the actual construction, the entire process turned out to be much more affordable than purchasing a set of speakers or a high-end DAC or server these days.
 

 

 

The building process took 12 months from start to finish. Every drop of sweat and moments of stress have been rewarded as time moves forward.

 

Thanks for viewing! 

 

But are you happy now???

[AccuTidal]

38 minutes ago, LogicprObe said:

 

But are you happy now???

When it comes to room acoustics, I can assert that the results are quite impressive. I have come to appreciate how significant a role room acoustics play in overall sonic performance, with speaker placement following closely and the quality of electronics being slightly less critical in comparison.

 

In my experience with various ultra-high-end equipment, I have observed that they may not always deliver their best performance to the human ear. However, in a dedicated room designed for optimal acoustics, these high-quality electronics can truly shine.

 

In conclusion, I believe that investing in room acoustics has been one of the most beneficial choices I’ve made in this hobby. Not only has it added value to my home, but it has also noticeably enhanced the sound quality of my more modest electronics, bringing them closer to high-end standards that many of my guests have appreciated.

[wen]

@campo007,sorry for the flippant reply. The concrete block is relative to an experiment 45yrs ago when we placed a brick on a Quad 405, a noticeable difference in sound, from memory was perceived as better. The crystal i chose from a friends "hippi" shop, there were about 10 in a basket, this one was the only one that was warm to pick up, used it to help me focus during a difficult period in my life. The effect with where it is placed now, no change i could notice in the sound. I thought it would be better where i would see it often, these days with hearing aids i am enjoying the music more than the hifi.

[mcmoyle]

I'm lucky to have one now. Used to be shared with gym equipment. 

A bit more design to go but happy with how it sounds.

Edited February 26 by mcmoyle

[gillmaverick]

I have mancave / Dedicated room. Needed dirt to level my backyard So dug out 2 truckloads from under the house ( 12 m X 4.5 m ) . It was mostly a 2 channel stereo space for me self but after having twins 6 months ago......I have turned it into a 11.3.4 home theatre

AKA    GILLAGE CINEMA.

Needs a dedicated thread of the process.....