Fixing room acoustics for a small listening room

kvalsvoll

Member
Thread Starter
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
15
"Before the treatment, certain low frequencies was very dominant, and no matter EQ's applied, the result was not good."

Fixing room acoustics is no longer a never-ending journey with experiments and trials and unpredictable results - how to do it is known, how it will measure when it works is known. But this knowledge is still not necessarily widespread, especially in the world of hifi.

What do you think? Can we fix any room in a predictable way?

This quite small, dedicated listening room was fixed like this:
44055


For objective evaluation, we focus on what goes on in the time domain.

Decay (20ms rise-time, 20ms lines) shows good frequency balance, and there are no resonances:
44056


The RT60 Decay shows a decay profile that drops off fast and is reasonably similar across the frequency range:
44057


Practical implementation of acoustic treatment can be done in different ways, and still end up acoustically similar. You can build it yourself, or have someone do it. Panels can be bought, and then you can get professional advice from the supplier.


I have put together some text and measurements on my web site, about this room and acoustics:

Article/info-thread - with more pictures and measurements graphs:

Owner's impression:

It was not possible to post links, so you will have to search the web to find this text.
 

kvalsvoll

Member
Thread Starter
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
15
Just to clarify; my company does not sell acoustic treatment products, and we do not provide a paid service for acoustic room design.

The principles behind this room design are to be considered as known, generally available knowledge that can be used by anyone who wants to improve room acoustics.
Here, I wanted to show how this can be done, and how we can verify acoustic performance using REW.
 

BenToronto

Member
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
118
Where is the before and after comparison? Below is my smallish room bass waterfall. Is it better or worse that the one in thread? I don't know how to judge it.

The inspirational illustration seems to be wholly out of proportion - see "4 cm" back wall looking like 2 feet thick batt.

There are 3 treatments I can see. Whatever are they????

Nice to see this R&D but it would be nice to have some idea what was done.

BTW, nobody doubts you can improve a music room. The real challenge is fixing it without needing immense renovations.

B.

44167
 

kvalsvoll

Member
Thread Starter
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
15
Where is the before and after comparison? Below is my smallish room bass waterfall. Is it better or worse that the one in thread? I don't know how to judge it.

The inspirational illustration seems to be wholly out of proportion - see "4 cm" back wall looking like 2 feet thick batt.

There are 3 treatments I can see. Whatever are they????

The back wall absorber is 400mm thick - 40cm. 1ft equals approx. 30cm. Wood fiber insulation, acoustically similar to rockwool.

The front wall is 200mm/20cm thick absorption. Wood fiber insulation, acoustically similar to rockwool.

Here is the "before" decay - same scaling as the decay graph in my 1. post:
44168


The point here is to illustrate how broad-band absorption makes a singificant difference in the important 100hz-1khz range.
 

BenToronto

Member
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
118
Thanks for additional information. That's a lot of absorbent. Maybe more than many spouses would want in a small room. Now that you have kindly told us how thick, could you please test us what is the square area?

But I can't tell much difference between the before and after waterfalls. Look pretty similar. Can you please explain what you think we ought to see?

What is that treatment in the middle of the room that appears to be a wall in front of the chairs, labelled "Absorbent i tak..."?

Thanks.
Ben
 

kvalsvoll

Member
Thread Starter
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
15
That's a lot of absorbent. Maybe more than many spouses would want in a small room. Now that you have kindly told us how thick, could you please test us what is the square area?

The room is w-l-h 3.44m - 4.41m - 2.22m. From the 3d model (made by the owner) we see that the absorbing area covers the whole front wall (exclusive room for subwoofer units) and a large part of the back wall.

The room is quite small, but large enough to contain sufficient acoustic treatment, seating and the sound system. The main problem is height - ceiling is a bit low.

To do a wall similar to this could be reasonable even in a lving room, as it can be made to look just like any flat wall, much better visually than mounting lots of absorber modules on the wall.

This would all make so more sense if I had been able to post the link to the description, as there is a lot more information written there. I may copy some of the text and post it here.
 

kvalsvoll

Member
Thread Starter
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
15
But I can't tell much difference between the before and after waterfalls. Look pretty similar. Can you please explain what you think we ought to see?

Decay is much more linear across the frequency range, initial early decay is much better, in the 100hz-1khz range.
 

hemiutut

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
34
"Before the treatment, certain low frequencies was very dominant, and no matter EQ's applied, the result was not good."

Fixing room acoustics is no longer a never-ending journey with experiments and trials and unpredictable results - how to do it is known, how it will measure when it works is known. But this knowledge is still not necessarily widespread, especially in the world of hifi.

What do you think? Can we fix any room in a predictable way?

This quite small, dedicated listening room was fixed like this:
View attachment 44055

Hello
Can you put the RT (T20, T30 and Topt ?.

It is to see what is in the room.

Written with Google translate

Greetings
 

kvalsvoll

Member
Thread Starter
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
15
Hello
Can you put the RT (T20, T30 and Topt ?.

It is to see what is in the room.

Written with Google translate

Greetings

Looks like this, and I will try to explain why these RT60 numbers are not usable for describing the acoustic properties in a small room:
44474


These RT60 numbers are meant to be a measure of how live the room is, so we can have a simple single number describing the acoustic properties of a room. But it does not work. In this room, the different methods for calculation of the number RT60 matches up pretty good, but this will not be the case across different small rooms - T30 will give different number from T20 or Topt - which one to choose.. See the problem - impossible to calculate the number in a consistent way, due to how the decay profile end up in a room that ia actually too small to have a diffuse reverberant field, which again, is a requirement for the RT60 to be a valid measure of the decay time in a space or room.

Decay will start with an initial drop - determined by loudspeaker radiation pattern and acoustic properties of close boundaries, then followed by a linear decay slope that may change towards slower decay further out in time, depending on the acoustic properties of the room.

Here is a different room:
44475


Now it is harder to say which numbers we should use. May be this room is bad..

..No, it is actually better than the previous one, and to see what is going on, we need to look at the decay profile:
44476


This room has a much better initial drop (always good), and it also preserves later decay better - does not sound dead even with very good early decay attenuation.

The valid representation for decay is to look at initial decay drop, then the slope of the decay. This decay slope will tend to be quite linear in a normal, well treated, smaller rectangular room. It is the attenuation on the early 50ms approximately, that is most important for clarity and imaging.

It is also important to look at how the decay profile changes across the frequency range - a similar behavior from around 100Hz all the way to the top is desired, for the room to have a balanced sound that is not perceived as too dry or dead.

I hope some of this makes a little sense. However, these numbers and graphs only has meaning if you can relate to what you hear, experience from different rooms with different acoustic properties and then comparing measurements from those rooms, are necessary to be able to "see" the sound from measurements.
 

hemiutut

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
34
Thanks for the deference in answering.
Too bad I can't put the link to see more information about the commented room.

I'm going to try to put a link where it is clearly seen, that with a multisub configuration of subs, no resonator is needed for the lower frequencies.
The resulting waterfall is practically perfect.

I see that it won't let me put the link :justdontknow:

In REW I do not get this option or I do not know how to put it.
Can you explain how to get that measurements ?
In my particular case, the top part does not come out

bm2-fixed-rt60_250_2k-png.png


f205-rom2-rt60_decay-471hz-rt60_decay-png.png


Greetings
 
Last edited:

hemiutut

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
34
The parameters of the RT60 are not valid for most of the people, since we have small rooms.
A room of 50 meters for acoustic purposes is small.

A pity but there is no way to put the link :justdontknow:

Written with Google translate

Greetings



SMALL ROOMS AND REVERBERATION TIME
To quote Professor Doug Jones: “The acoustics of small rooms is dominated by modes, shape, and reflection management. Acousticians who build large rooms are frequently frustrated with small room design because few of the intellectual tools of the trade that work in large rooms can be applied to small rooms. Getting small rooms to sound right involves art and science. The science part is mostly straight forward. The creative part is quite subjective and a great sounding small room can be just as elusive as a great sounding concert hall.”
So what is a small room? Manfred Schroder defines them as follows; A large room for speech with a low frequency limit of 80 Hz is = to or >991 m³ (35,000 ft³) and a large room for wide range music with a low frequency limit of 30 Hz is = to or >7079 m³ (250,000 ft³). Right, obviously acoustically large or small is a frequency dependant phenomenon but surely by definition most of us are working / listening in non statistical small acoustical spaces.
The question really becomes centered on the definition of reverberation. Wallace Clement Sabine who first formulated the equation to calculate reverberation time described reverberation in this way: “Reverberation results in a mass of sound filling the whole room and incapable of of analysis into its distinct reflections” Meaning, for true reverberation to exist, there needs to be a homogeneous and isotropic sound field. Usually such conditions are approached in physically large rooms that do not contain much absorption.
Unfortunately reverberation is popularly understood to be equivalent to decay. Sabine also wrote: “The word ‘resonance’ has been used loosely as synonymous with reverberation and even with echo and is so given in some of the more voluminous but less exact popular dictionaries. In scientific literature the term has received a very definite and precise application to the phenomenon where ever it may occur. A word having this significance is necessary; and it is very desirable that the term should not, even popularly, by meaning many things, cease to mean anything exactly.”
This is where we are today. Without rigorous definition and application of the concept of reverberation we are left with something that ceases to mean anything exactly. Who really cares right? Isn’t it just semantics? Prof Doug Jones: “It is generally accepted that in small rooms after approximately four to six bounces, a sound wave will have lost most of its energy to the reflecting surfaces and will become so diffuse as to be indistinguishable from the noise floor. This of course depends on the amount of absorption in the room.”
In a 4.9m x 3.3m x 2.4 m (12’ X 16’ X 8’) room a single wave will take less than 33 ms to bounce five times and be gone. Don Davis: “It should always be considered that, insofar as the reverberation formulas depend on the statistical averages, they presuppose a complete mixing of sound in the room. In very absorptive rooms the sound dies away in a few reflections, and the statistical basis of the formulas is weakened.”
“Spaces that qualify as “large rooms” can effectively utilize the myriad of equations based on the original assumptions of Sabine for his reverberation equations. In spaces exceeding these volumes and with an RT60 of 1.6 seconds or greater, we will find mixing homogenous sound fields of sufficient density to allow accurate engineering estimates of the level of each.”
Don Davis: “What is often overlooked in the attempted measurement of RT60 in small rooms is that the definition of RT60 has two parts, the first of which is unfortunately commonly overlooked.
1 RT60 is the measurement of the decay time of a well mixed reverberant sound field well beyond Dc, a real critical distance.
2 RT60 is the time in seconds for the reverberant sound field to decay 60 dB after the sound source is silenced.
Since in small rooms, there is no Dc, no well mixed sound field, hence, no reverberation but merely a series of early reflected energy, the measurement of RT60 becomes meaningless in such environments.
What becomes meaningful is the control of early reflections because there is no reverberation to mask them.”
Fundamental point: modal decay rates are not reverberation. Reverberation is “the time in seconds that it takes a diffuse sound field, well beyond a real critical distance, to lower in level by 60 dB when the sound source is silenced.” Modal decay rates are dB-per-second (dB/s) rate of decay for a specific modal frequency.
In the end, one place to start is to avoid the use of an equation that is nonsensical in its application.
Once more, Don Davis: “One hundred eight reflections allow a reasonable statistical sample. When small absorptive spaces such as control rooms in recording studios, small classrooms, etc., are computed the inapplicability of statistical equations becomes apparent because of the low N. Such enclosures do indeed have a finite number of reflections that are best handled by careful Envelope Time Curve (ETC) analysis and specific rather than statistical treatment of the indicated surfaces.”
Don Davis quotes from Sound System Engineering 4th Edition
Doug Jones quoted from Handbook for Sound Engineers 4th Edition
W.C. Sabine. Quoted from Collected Papers on Acoustics, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1922
 

kvalsvoll

Member
Thread Starter
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
15
In REW I do not get this option or I do not know how to put it.
Can you explain how to get that measurements ?
In my particular case, the top part does not come out

Possible you need to update your REW software, this is taken from the "RT60 Decay" window. Button between RT60 and Clarity, on the top.
 

kvalsvoll

Member
Thread Starter
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
15
It is a small room of 9 meters + or -
How is the upper part of the RT60 Decay interpreted at that frequency?

Looks good to me, quite short decay for this room that is larger - 9m is quite large, for domestic rooms.
 

BenToronto

Member
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
118
Thanks for the guidance in this thread - esp finding RT-decay.

Post #12 recounts the sad, sad experience of acousticians planning small rooms and control rooms. But that doesn't mean you can't empirically measure whatever room you use and tune it some and whether the lingering sound is resonance or reverb.
 

kvalsvoll

Member
Thread Starter
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
15
Thanks for the guidance in this thread - esp finding RT-decay.

Post #12 recounts the sad, sad experience of acousticians planning small rooms and control rooms. But that doesn't mean you can't empirically measure whatever room you use and tune it some and whether the lingering sound is resonance or reverb.

This RT60 often ends up in a discussion of semantics, and once we establish this definition of RT60 as a measure that can't mean anything in small rooms, we can still continue to use it, as a measure of how fast the sound decays - in any size room.

I find the Decay graph - like the one in #4 - to be useful to see what is going on - you can see resonances, you see if there is reasonable balance across the frequency range, and you see if a room is dead or too live by comparing to other rooms that you have heard.
 

hemiutut

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
34
Thanks for the guidance in this thread - esp finding RT-decay.

Post #12 recounts the sad, sad experience of acousticians planning small rooms and control rooms. But that doesn't mean you can't empirically measure whatever room you use and tune it some and whether the lingering sound is resonance or reverb.


On the subject of RT extrapolating to the acoustics of our rooms, it is very easy to achieve it.
I recommend this engineer's channel, where he explains with short videos how easy it is to achieve dream acoustics.



Written with Google translate

Greetings
 
Top Bottom