Dang! I knew I shouldn’t have settled for the 10 piece Kit!
32 responses Add your response
I just recently treated my room with acoustic panels. A VERY noticeable improvement in all aspects. I have a very small listening room (9x13x8) a couple of bass traps,some absorption panels and some diffusion panels,and the sound is transformed.
I am a definite believer in room treatments. I don’t care how you do it,SR HFT’s,GIK,any other manufactured panels,DIY panels,whatever,the room is a major component. I think too many people don’t address this fact.
Conventional panel wise, yes. Anyone can totally replicate any GIK or other overpriced panel for peanuts. By being able to do custom exactly what you need and no more its even possible to do better. But then there are things like HFT that no one can make anything anywhere near as good no matter how hard they try. So its another one of those things where a little knowledge is a huge advantage.
In the commercial space I really like GIK - very high performance panels and traps, at a fraction of the cost of ASC.
Conventional panel wise, yes. Anyone can totally replicate any GIK or other overpriced panel for peanuts.
Yeah, but GIK is already so inexpensive, and their stuff is carefully measured. In particular, their bass traps perform down in frequencies where most have given up, and their advice is far and above awesome.
fact33Proper room treatment with acoustic panels, corner blocks, traps ect work a treat.
Just stay well away from expensive BS snake oil voodoo things like Shun Mook pucks, little dots, little bags of rocks and those expensive little HFT things, they are just a money grab aimed at the gullible, who couldn’t be bothered doing the work with proper acoustic treatment.
And get the acoustic panels, corner blocks, traps ect from places that sell them for recording studios cheap. Like this one in Australia, There are even cheaper ones.
Black foam?I don't think so.
I did make my own a few years back and was sold on how effective they could be.Presently using GIK and am very happy with the looks and quality.I'd rather order exactly what I need online instead of hunting through the boards at the lumber yard searching for straight ones for the frames:-)
IMO room treatment is the most important aspect of having great sound. The most money for the buck upgrade . I use asc tube traps . Awesome customer care and they work with you like a architect does when you are designing your room.
they sent you equipment to measure how ur room sounds from where u listen to music and review with you in real time and recommend changes. Amazing group of people. Shout out to Jordan . Prolly home made stuff are as good but I am sure there are quite a few of us who don’t want to do that .
asc or similar brand all the way . Sound treatment is no 1 for getting good sound from your room. A music professor who is a piano player in the Cleveland orchestra came to my room and played the piano and was lost for words how good the room sounded . (My listening room is big and has a grand piano in it .) He was so excited that he wanted to have a live trio band play in my room and record it . Vote for investing in sound treatment , done right .
any Serious DIY would fell own trees for lumber for frames, gin some 40 acre cotton and put mule skin over the foam from the backyard rubber tree...
You left out mine and refine the ore, smelt and cast, shape and sharpen, plant and grow. Evidently in your zeal to ridicule you neglected to consider there might be someone here capable of doing all that. Yeah. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
DIY is Do It Yourself. A practical philosophy in no way associated with extremism. Let alone silly straw man "reasoning". Which you seem to have down to an art.
I too received great results after installing prescribed room treatments by GIK. I have a 12x24 bonus room over the garage with a cantilever ceiling that I’ve turned into a HT for the family. Pursuing improvements and upgrades led me to Acoustic Fields - anyone have any experience with them? They conducted a room analysis and told me the treatments previously prescribed by GIK were not correct for my specific room needs. They’ve provided their suggestions - which is significantly more than the initial GIK investment. $16k vs $4k. I believe their analysis to be sound and their products to be of premium quality, but I’m struggling to come to terms with the expense. Does anyone have experience with Acoustic Fields and their products?
I am a doubter no more. It wasn’t that I did doubt room treatment, I was just unsure how much effect it would have in mine, full of furniture, large rug, and ‘stuff’. I didn't see a need for more dampening.
Thus, I went to the basement and found a few sheets of styrofoam, and started temporarily handing them on various wall surfaces, and was surprised by the result, some good, some bad, but a definite affect.
What I didn’t have was anything to use as diffusers, but still, realized there could be a positive to using something more permanent and was willing to experiment further. So, I bought some acoustic tiles, and also a box of 3D tiles, which some had used as diffusion panels in their own listening rooms.
For me, with my Vandy 2CE Sigs about 3’ from the back wall, I ended up with some absorption panels at the rear behind each speaker, and applied the ‘diffuser tiles’ to each side wall *behind* the Vandys, (exactly the reverse of what I thought I would do), and after playing around some more, put up more ‘diffuser tiles to the sides in front of the speakers. And finally more of the ‘diffuser tiles’ on the rear between the speakers.
I believe what I realized was my room was probably ‘dead’, too dampened overall, and the various diffusion panels, along with some absorption directly behind, finally did what has bothered me the most about the Vandy’s in my room after trying all types of things; it actually helped them to, finally, disappear within the soundstage, while also expanding its width and depth by a fair degree. The overall imaging and separation of instruments is far better now than anything I believed I could accomplish with equipment all by itself.
Is it perfect? No, not yet, but glad I took the plunge, because I’m now convinced how much our space, and not treating it, can deprive us of what our equipment is capable of, and how good my music can present itself, at a fraction of the cost of said equipment.
You might try tweaking speaker placement first. I've tried a lot of formulas...the best one for me was placing the speakers against the narrow wall in the room firing down the longer length of the room and placing them one fifth in from the side walls. Measured to the center of the front baffle or to the tweeter or half way between the tweeter and the mid-range/bass driver. So if the room is 160"w, for example, you would have the center of the front baffle 32" in from each side wall. It's a starting point...then tweak from there. 1/5 front to back too...but that was not possible for me...but I got excellent results regardless.
Speaker placement first, then acoustic treatment. Best sound I got was having nothing between the speakers (except a thick Persian rug)...so placing the equipment rack along the side wall. Most people can't do this...but this really helps imaging.
Also avoid any picture frames with glass. Art with canvas or wood carvings are helpful but anything hard/shiny/smooth is problematic.
Charlie you are out of your depth unless you have lost wax cast a trigger guard, swamped and rifled a blank, logged your own walnut tree and then bandmilled her down, dried it five years, stickered in natural air, etc....make your own sights because Redfields while good are not Hammerli quality, ya know low standards
but ya know in an olive branch of peace , you are welcome to come shoot an elk with my diy Hawken some day
But yes there are people who work differently some buy, etc
my apology if my post came across as denigrating
i am sure there is something I can learn from you
Rack along a side wall vs centered between speakers
Correct, worst thing you can do for imaging and depth perception, is have your equipment between the speakers. Speakers at least a min of .5 to 1mt in from the side wall, and as far out from the from the back wall as you can, if? you don’t need the extra bass loading the back wall can give.
Thought I'd add my two cents to the discussion.
There's no doubt in my mind that acoustical treatment can make a world of difference that both the ears and eyes can detect (from pre and post measurement graphs). Best start with some education I found. I have examples in my systems of reflective baffles, diffusion (QRD and Skylines) and absorption. Below are some of my learnings:
Measurements first: You can't manage what you can't measure plays a role here. At the very least measure frequency response (ideally a flat response is better) and reverb time (to avoid over dampening the room with things that absorb too much sound). I use Dayton Audio OmniMic which allows me to see the troubling frequencies so speaker placement and acoustic treatment placement experimentation can begin and note its affect. Often solving one problem frequency creates a new problem so it'll take patience to try and optimize speaker and acoustical treatment placement.
Treatment strategy: for most domestic sized rooms absorption of low frequencies and reflection and or diffusion of mid to high frequencies works well. This avoids over dampening. The transition frequency range for most home rooms where sound waves transition to "beams" due to smaller wavelengths is about 300-500Hz so you'll need bass traps to work below this range and diffusion to work above it.
Thickness matters: Too often manufacturers sell absorbers and diffusers that are too thin. And the reason you want them thick (at least 6") is so they don't act like a low-pass filter and only operate on some of the frequencies hitting it. You want the absorber or diffuser to work as broadband as possible so as not to skew the frequency range of its reflections and reflections of those reflections. For a diffuser, the depth of its slots or wells (for a QRD or Skyline type) determines its lowest frequency, so for example a 6.75" depth will work down to 500Hz as it is one-quarter of a 500Hz wavelength.
Sitting distance from treatments: Normally you can sit much closer to an absorber than a diffuser which needs more space for the scattering to occur so the sound coalesces by the time you hear it. If you need to be close to a diffuser - say on the ceiling or side walls which are near your listening position - then choose a 2-dimensional one (diffuses both horizontally and vertically) so that only about half of the reflections are coming your way.
@jdeickhoff, I’m currently planning for an Acoustic-Fields-designed, dedicated listening room to be added onto the back of my 2-car garage, building to begin in a month or so. My GC will be looking at how much it will cost me to frame the room, as Dennis suggests, in 2"x12" instead of 2"x4" - that to allow the needed depth for the in-wall carbon filters (100 Hz down to 30 Hz). When I get a fixed idea for that part of the budget, Dennis will run the dimensions for me and can tell me how many filters of what type I will need and where in the walls they will need to go to.
I will finish out the inside myself using 3/4", finish-grade plywood. (Dennis tells me that, sound-wise, drywall is, like, the spawn of satan). The room will end up being medium-sized, but it should be well controlled by the time I’m through with it. I will be building the carbon filters, a few foam absorbers and a few quadratic diffusers myself from his plans, so I will need to buy a good table saw and teach myself the hows ($500). The filters and all can be built for $2-4k, depending on how many Dennis tells me I’ll need. The pricey part will be for the framing aspect of the construction, but nearly all of it will be paid for with the equity in my home. So, I’m currently looking at just the materials cost and some time...unless my GC comes back with a truly budget-busting number...keeping my fingers crossed for now.
Thanks @jdeickhoff. Yes, it is definitely going to be a hatful. Originally I thought I would post the whole thing after it was done, but now I think it would be too much to try to explain in retrospect, so I may post it, pics and all, in one place somewhere, after construction starts and provide updates as I go.
Anyone here with firsthand experience with Acoustic Fields active carbon products that can speak to the improvements they experienced after installing them?
@jdesj - I too looked into Roxul, Rock Wool, 703/704 and other products for a DIY solution. During my research I discovered many health concerns about those products. Not that we all don’t make calculated decisions daily, but with 2 young children at home, my conscience would not let me take that chance.
Sound travels in waves that are longer for lower frequencies. Because of this short wavelength high frequencies can be absorbed by thin panels, while longer wavelength bass frequencies require much larger panels and shapes. So whether a 1" or 2" thick panel is worthless or not depends on the frequency you're trying to treat.
But you knew all that. Right?