So, is the room the most important component of your HiFi Set up?

[Analogous]

So, is the room the most important component?

Don’t give up because your room is suboptimal — almost all of them are — and chances are very high that you can and will still get amazing sound.

Archimago says “ it seems like the article is basically saying that we can rearrange our gear or perhaps treat our rooms in ways that sound good, thus making the room less important than a general consensus might suggest. There seems to be an undertone of trying to downplay the role of the sound room and suggesting that one can spend more money on high quality gear and still benefit. OK, sure, to some extent that's true; but there are obviously limits. After all, if the room is way too small, cubical, highly reflective and impractical to treat, speakers inappropriately shoved deeply against walls, or if there is no space behind the seating position, there's obviously no point spending $$$$ on gear that one can barely appreciate! In my opinion, the quality and size of the room and quality of the gear (especially speakers) should be reasonably balanced.

IMO, without doubt, the room does play a major role in the sound quality; I think it would be silly to suggest otherwise even though I have heard some completely deny this over the years! For example, objectively we can easily show the nodes (nulls) and antinodes (peaks) resulting from reflections and standing waves in our small domestic listening rooms. Subjectively, these effects/limitations are easily audible as well. The way we arrange the speakers will interact with the inherent properties of our listening room in ways much more significant than much of the concerns "hardware audiophiles" often speak of or obsess over (like which CD player/DAC/streamer/server we use, cable differences, or if jitter even is audible .”

MUSINGS / MEASUREMENTS: Multiple subwoofers to reduce nulls. The USB/UFO faithful. And thanks for the blind test submissions!

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

“So, is the room the most important component? Nope. But feel free to argue” ( after taking a look at this):

Is the room the most important component?

Hi-Fi news, gear reviews, and interviews

parttimeaudiophile.com

 

[aeroash]

“So, is the room the most important component? Nope. But feel free to argue” ( after taking a look at this):

Is the room the most important component?

Hi-Fi news, gear reviews, and interviews

parttimeaudiophile.com

Interesting perspective!

 

[amit11]

This video says much, without saying a word.

 

[liverpool_for_life]

So, is the room the most important component?

IME, yes. Treating it has been the difference between a useless system (even with quality speakers) and one that sounds somewhat in the region implied by its potential. YMMV.

It’d be eye-opening for folks, IMO, to measure their speakers’ in-room response. Especially 500 Hz and below, in both the frequency and time domains.

 

[Analogous]

It’d be eye-opening for folks, IMO, to measure their speakers’ in-room response. Especially 500 Hz and below, in both the frequency and time domains.

Is there a simple way to do this?

 

[liverpool_for_life]

Is there a simple way to do this?

Room EQ Wizard (REW) software with a compatible mic like the UMIK from minidsp.

 

[Analogous]

Than you.
So, if I buy this software and mike…there is presumably some guidance for novices on how to use and interpret it?
More importantly what to do with the findings?
Apologies for these basic questions but it’s all very new to me.

 

[liverpool_for_life]

Than you.
So, if I buy this software and mike…

Welcome. REW is free.

there is presumably some guidance for novices on how to use and interpret it?

Yes: https://www.dropbox.com/s/dl/51jpnxet3bvew2k/REW 101 HTS Current Version.pdf

More importantly what to do with the findings?

Once you get things running, post your results here and I’ll be happy to help.

Apologies for these basic questions but it’s all very new to me.

No apologies required. Anyone that’s used REW was in your position once. We figure some stuff out on our own, we ask for help when we can’t. Good luck in your pursuit of better quality sound!

 

[Analogous]

Welcome. REW is free.



Yes: https://www.dropbox.com/s/dl/51jpnxet3bvew2k/REW 101 HTS Current Version.pdf



Once you get things running, post your results here and I’ll be happy to help.



No apologies required. Anyone that’s used REW was in your position once. We figure some stuff out on our own, we ask for help when we can’t. Good luck in your pursuit of better quality sound!

Thank you so much.
The REW guide lists (among other things) that I would need an AVR that supports HDMI (1.4 or higher).
As my stereo amp does not have a HDMI is there a workaround? (I don’t have an HT-AVR)

 

[DB1989]

Thank you so much.
The REW guide lists (among other things) that I would need an AVR that supports HDMI (1.4 or higher).
As my stereo amp does not have a HDMI is there a workaround? (I don’t have an HT-AVR)

You simply need to find a way to connect your computer to your amp. This can be something as basic as (i) a 3.5mm to RCA connector directly from your laptop/PCs 3.5mm out (assuming it has one - certain newer MACs dont though they come with a dongle) to the RCA-in of your amp or (ii) USB out to your stereo amp/DACs USB in (preferable).

If I'm not mistaken, you'd stated in a certain post some time ago that you had a chord mojo. The Chord Mojo has the trifecta of most commonly used inputs i.e. coaxial, optical and USB. Simply connect your (i) laptop/PC to the Chord Mojo, and (ii) 3.5m to RCA from Mojo to Amp.

Alternatively, assuming your amp has optical in, you can go HDMI from your PC/laptop to your TV and use the optical out of the TV (you will need to change the sound output of your TV to SPDIF out in the settings menu) to the Amp.

 

[Analogous]

You simply need to find a way to connect your computer to your amp. This can be something as basic as (i) a 3.5mm to RCA connector directly from your laptop/PCs 3.5mm out (assuming it has one - certain newer MACs dont though they come with a dongle) to the RCA-in of your amp or (ii) USB out to your stereo amp/DACs USB in (preferable).

If I'm not mistaken, you'd stated in a certain post some time ago that you had a chord mojo. The Chord Mojo has the trifecta of most commonly used inputs i.e. coaxial, optical and USB. Simply connect your (i) laptop/PC to the Chord Mojo, and (ii) 3.5m to RCA from Mojo to Amp.

Alternatively, assuming your amp has optical in, you can go HDMI from your PC/laptop to your TV and use the optical out of the TV (you will need to change the sound output of your TV to SPDIF out in the settings menu) to the Amp.

Thanks!
The mojo is long gone, but I get what you are saying: I can use my current DAC connected as you have suggested.

 

[headcase]

I believe in it more than ever now as I recently made some minor change like get a smaller AV table custom made replacing a bigger taller one and the result is amazing.

I don't use my sub anymore since then for music at all.

It's like the earlier furniture was getting in the way of the sound field and cancelling it completely. So it's not just the air dispersion in front or back that matters but the space and acoustics around the speakers 360 degree 2-3 mtrs.

Minimal furniture in between the speakers & gear and on either sides (equal). Toe in 10-30 deg firing @The listening position.
(Just like we see in demo rooms)

Room is like an acoustic box itself.

 

[Analogous]

This chart is just an opinion/view on the relative importance of various factors…
(Nothing objective) but seems like a good starting point or a rough guide?

 

[grindstone]

I think people are at all different levels in their audio journeys and that no agreement is ever possible

Practicality must win, and some sound is better than no sound, so there are degrees of things. Nearfield/monitor/computer vs. small auditorium. As we learn (and understand our own priorites in sound), we often seek deeper understanding of causality. Some people are just starting out, some people have been working 70 years on things--this may be obvious, but seems overlooked quite often.

Reflections and cancellations caused by room boundaries are positively frightening when one first learns of them, but they also always "win" in the end so finding a way to work with what they do is useful. At the simplest/ideal level, they confine radiation to a certain shape of space and this changes what arrives from our loudspeakers.

The reality is messier. Building construction details are often beyond our control but can matter significantly in low frequency performance. Like any physical medium, walls can reflect, absorb, and/or transmit to varying degrees--and it's both material and frequency-dependent. Some "give" to walls is not all bad. Concrete, for example, is a better "reflector" of bass than absorber, but it also transmits well due to higher density. I made this screen for a friend as one example to relate it to music. The particular graph is for transmission loss through the material (a specific kind of gypsum drywall), but the general shape of the curve holds true for almost all construction materials.

<first attachment>

Matters of low-bass become architectural considerations, taken far-enough, and there's plenty to read about types of transmission elsewhere.

There are simple things that can be done (and if it's an interesting pursuit, so much the better). Some basic considerations and use of REW may be found here for example. Pretty much everyone has floors and ceilings

Trying to model things including boundaries necessarily involves some material parameter assumptions--such as that example transmission loss curve and so on. This was something I was looking at today just to use as an example, but it's a good example because it's severe and involves several sources rear-firing at an angle straight into a corner.

<second>

The bottom plot is a port (2 of them, actually at different heights), driver, and system response w/o any boundaries (but all with a baffle). The middle plot has boundaries but no reflections. The top plot adds reflections. The deep notches are cancellations that are functions of distances. Also evident is some reinforcement of even the "bad" when reflections are added. Every output in a system is a "source". Reflections are also sources, just modified in time/phase and magnitude like energy impinging on any interface/medium change (blah-blah). See--frightening BTW, that's all still hooked to its imaginary perfect voltage source (don't tell me you want to connect it to other speakers, a filter network, and an amplifier--and playing in the same room? Are you mad?!?!) So the answer is yes, we are all positively mad and there is a lot going on.

If you think about all the different places people put speakers, it makes you (one) appreciate the plight (and achievements) of commercial loudspeaker people--who must aim for "half-space" (2 pi) unless otherwise stated for their product (ie corner speakers or flown/outdoor, etc).

So rooms matter, but we have placement, ears, tools like REW, and long evolutionary psychoacoustic development on our side. I didn't care about rooms for 45 years and heard a lot of good sound along the way. If a person wants to get deep-deep into it, you'll be measuring wall materials (or contracting with acoustical engineers for your construction)...sooo, pragmatism and everyone at different levels.

I like the pi chart and don't much disagree that someone holds that view, but it's not really mine, either. If I've only got a phone for a source and almost no money, I'm not spending 40% of it on the room. OTOH, if I'm wealthy and have very fine gear already, I might pay a great deal of attention to the room in my home theater, and so on. I think we all progress one item at a time, and if we keep it fun and work on what's interesting, we get to listen to a lot of music we like while we're wondering things.

 

[Analogous]

I think people are at all different levels in their audio journeys and that no agreement is ever possible

Practicality must win, and some sound is better than no sound, so there are degrees of things. Nearfield/monitor/computer vs. small auditorium. As we learn (and understand our own priorites in sound), we often seek deeper understanding of causality. Some people are just starting out, some people have been working 70 years on things--this may be obvious, but seems overlooked quite often.

Reflections and cancellations caused by room boundaries are positively frightening when one first learns of them, but they also always "win" in the end so finding a way to work with what they do is useful. At the simplest/ideal level, they confine radiation to a certain shape of space and this changes what arrives from our loudspeakers.

The reality is messier. Building construction details are often beyond our control but can matter significantly in low frequency performance. Like any physical medium, walls can reflect, absorb, and/or transmit to varying degrees--and it's both material and frequency-dependent. Some "give" to walls is not all bad. Concrete, for example, is a better "reflector" of bass than absorber, but it also transmits well due to higher density. I made this screen for a friend as one example to relate it to music. The particular graph is for transmission loss through the material (a specific kind of gypsum drywall), but the general shape of the curve holds true for almost all construction materials.

<first attachment>

Matters of low-bass become architectural considerations, taken far-enough, and there's plenty to read about types of transmission elsewhere.

There are simple things that can be done (and if it's an interesting pursuit, so much the better). Some basic considerations and use of REW may be found here for example. Pretty much everyone has floors and ceilings

Trying to model things including boundaries necessarily involves some material parameter assumptions--such as that example transmission loss curve and so on. This was something I was looking at today just to use as an example, but it's a good example because it's severe and involves several sources rear-firing at an angle straight into a corner.

<second>

The bottom plot is a port (2 of them, actually at different heights), driver, and system response w/o any boundaries (but all with a baffle). The middle plot has boundaries but no reflections. The top plot adds reflections. The deep notches are cancellations that are functions of distances. Also evident is some reinforcement of even the "bad" when reflections are added. Every output in a system is a "source". Reflections are also sources, just modified in time/phase and magnitude like energy impinging on any interface/medium change (blah-blah). See--frightening BTW, that's all still hooked to its imaginary perfect voltage source (don't tell me you want to connect it to other speakers, a filter network, and an amplifier--and playing in the same room? Are you mad?!?!) So the answer is yes, we are all positively mad and there is a lot going on.

If you think about all the different places people put speakers, it makes you (one) appreciate the plight (and achievements) of commercial loudspeaker people--who must aim for "half-space" (2 pi) unless otherwise stated for their product (ie corner speakers or flown/outdoor, etc).

So rooms matter, but we have placement, ears, tools like REW, and long evolutionary psychoacoustic development on our side. I didn't care about rooms for 45 years and heard a lot of good sound along the way. If a person wants to get deep-deep into it, you'll be measuring wall materials (or contracting with acoustical engineers for your construction)...sooo, pragmatism and everyone at different levels.

I like the pi chart and don't much disagree that someone holds that view, but it's not really mine, either. If I've only got a phone for a source and almost no money, I'm not spending 40% of it on the room. OTOH, if I'm wealthy and have very fine gear already, I might pay a great deal of attention to the room in my home theater, and so on. I think we all progress one item at a time, and if we keep it fun and work on what's interesting, we get to listen to a lot of music we like while we're wondering things.

Thank you. These are useful insights, and as you have pointed out: we are all different levels (or points etc) in our journey.

Speaking of such journeys: I have friends who after listening to my set up decide they need new speaker cables or somesuch. When I inquire, they seem to be making such decisions based on “faith” or peer influence.

I was wondering if the relative importance of the different variables (eg: as in the pie chart above) may help in identifying and prioritising areas where they can expect maximum impact on investment?

 

[square_wave]

Maybe I am not understanding the pie chart in the right context. But I have always felt that a balanced system in a room with balanced acoustics provides the most performance. From that context, I would divide the pie into 2. This would be an " importance " chart. One side would be the room and the other side would be the entire system ( a balanced one). The room is that important. A high quality speaker in a bad room will just sound bad.

If one were to talk about a budget and ask for a pie chart for spreading the expense, that would be different story!

 

[liverpool_for_life]

This would be an " importance " chart.

That's what the posted pie chart is.

One side would be the room and the other side would be the entire system ( a balanced one). The room is that important. A high quality speaker in a bad room will just sound bad.

Absolutely. It does vex me that people are unable to hear for themselves the difference a treated room can make. If it were possible to remove all my room treatments out of the way, I would do it in a heartbeat for anyone that visits. Just so people's ears can be opened. It's not just about the quality of the speakers and other electronics.

 

[Analogous]

I am yet to find a reviewer who reviews room acoustics in houses…

 

[liverpool_for_life]

I am yet to find a reviewer who reviews room acoustics in houses…

It’s not a coincidence that there’s likely no money in doing so.

 

[jls001]

A high quality speaker in a bad room will just sound bad.

Totally agree!

I have come across a number of audio rooms where pedigreed equipment did not produce commensurately good sound only because the room messed up the sound. The very first thing it messes up is the tonal balance, with bass getting undue "favour". There is simply too much bass and not enough mids and highs because bass bleeds into the mids and even the treble. A tone control knob or parametric equalization in the digital domain (or a combination of both) can salvage such a room to a great extent (irrespective of purist audiophile views on the matter). Room treatment and careful placement of speakers would be the better solution, but it is possible to overdamp a room and suck the life out of music.

Yes, the room really matters.