I think HT room acoustics typically have more room treatments in general. They tend to be designed to be more dampened and less lively sounding.
9 responses Add your response
i have a separate 2-channel listening room. it has hardwood floors in the front third (1st 9.75 feet of a 29 foot length) of the room, thick carpet is on the rear 2/3rd's of the room. all the wall surfaces are diffusive, which eliminates beaming but does not reduce energy. it's not an accident that it resembles a concert hall with an audience. the hardwood is like a stage and the carpet is like an audience. the goal is to retain energy and allow it to bloom and decay naturally. how you treat a 2-channel room also has lots to do with size. smaller rooms still need some absorbtion to control refective energy or you can overdrive the room easily.
i also have a separate home theatre. there i use absorbtion and it does have carpet over the whole room floor. in a 7.1 theatre you are trying to reduce reflection so the 7 different sets of speakers have minimal interaction with each other. if the room is too reflective it will be very slappy as you raise the volume and you won't get much detail. decay of notes is secondary and is recreated thru the surround sound and not the room itself.
when one combines 2-channel with 7.1 home theatre compromises must be made as to what priorities are.
Without doubt and regardless of size, room dimensions do have an influence on your system's sound.
But on the other hand sound is sound. Your system and room make no distinction between the sound of a music and a movie performance, nor should it. And neither should you.
As such, either room type should be relatively neutral if your goal is to capture what is in the recording and with minimal influence from you or your room.
That's assuming of course you're confident the majority of recordings themselves were sufficiently engineered (and do not require your help) and that your system is able to retrieve and process the vast majority of information embedded into the recording.
If you are, then why add your room's acoustic info on top of the ambient information that is already plentiful and embedded in the recording? It would seem there is nothing natural or authentic about such a strategy either in practice or in theory.
If you are not, then all bets are off anyway.
If unsure, then it would seem your best bet is to err on the side of neutrality. At least this way you have potentially one less variable to correct later.
yeah, at first glance/thought, it appears to me that a larger recording studio venue - with lots of hard reflective surfaces - seem like they should be too bright and lively sounding! My experience with acoustics is that larger spaces generally tend to absorb more bass, and thus need more absoption at mid/high's to help balance out the sound. At least this is how it work in home systems. Smaller acoustics spaces tend to be constructed so as to not absorb enough low frequency energy, and thus you need mor diffusion and reflection kept in the room to balance out the RT60.
So, yeah, if you look at something like the Sound Kitchen's largest "Big Boy" recording studio, it looks like it will be really bouncy and too lively and bright. But, I'm sure I'm missing something. Maybe it's that it's all EQ'd out er something, cause they use all kinds of digital tech. Dunno.
Hummm. I'll have to go through my bag of acoustics research more, cause this thread does have me wanting to shake the cobwebs off.
You'd have to ask Richard Rives and the guys at Rives audio about the Sound Kitchen job? Their guy Chris designed the Sound Kitchen, and lots of other recording and dedicated music spaces.
Seeez what theyz saaayz.