Is room treatment a science?

It is like medicine an art based on science.....

Because of the human factor….Remember that even if the ears are less accurate than a singular dial corresponding to a particular set of a measure instrument, the ears can coordinate multi measuring coming from different kind of apparatus about all dimensions of perceived sound experience (tonal accuracy, imaging etc)......The ears are the only judge and guide through audio....

There is 2 way to act on the acoustical field of a room:

1-The PASSIVE way with some different materials absorbing or reflecting one at different locations... Most people use only this way...I use homemade materials or low cost one at strategic locations...


2- There is the ACTIVE way that is more complex but very rewarding...

a- I use a grid of active metal resonator (30)
b- I use 20 Helmholtz bottles of different sizes
c- I use a grid of connected stones and crystals
d- I use a grid of cheap 8 Schumann Generators modified with crystals and stones...
e- I use a grid of 70 little bells or cones of 2 different sizes(7mm or 9 mm) with some nano Herkimer diamonds in them ...This grid of cones stabilize for the brain the recognizing process of complementing sounds waves coming with the competing obstructing distorsions created by the topology of the room accidents...This is not science only my way to convey my understanding...

The embeddings on an audio system in his mechanical resonant field is 20 % of the S.Q.
The embeddings of an audio system in the electrical field of the house is 25 % of the S.Q.
The embeddings of an audio system in the acoustical field of the room is 55 % of the S.Q.

The % varied relatively to the methods used, but these indications gives an idea of the general results after my experiments ….

The final results are a very high S. Q. for a ridiculous cost....All my materials are homemade created or bought for peanuts....But the result is in no way cheap.... :)

You can compensate for a modest audio system relatively to a very costly one with the controlling methods linked to these 3 embeddings ,especially the acoustical one....

A vintage low cost amplifier but good product of the past for example, in a controlled room, may sound way better than a way more costly one in a non treated room..... This is the only thing I know for a fact about audio....

Upgrading is most of the times only a game , but if you dont have money, it is not necessary to spend any great amount to buy Hi-FI…. The contrary opinion is "mostly" a marketing myth.... :)



In 2 words:
The acoustician is more important than the electronical engineer.... :)

So in the scientific view of acoustics we have a lot of different waves propagating back and forth across the room. Our scientific goal is to minimize the cancellations and reinforcements in order to hear the original signal as clear and undistorted as possible.

Miller just described an anechoic measurement chamber. Hahahahahaha.

Anechoic means no echo. Its a fact. You could look it up. Here, I’ll do it for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anechoic_chamberNo echo. No sounds going back and forth. Now what I said: "a lot of different waves propagating back and forth across the room." Literally the opposite of an anechoic measurement chamber.  

What you just described erik_squires is literally the opposite of what I said. You literally do not know the difference between echo and no echo. Now why am I not the least bit surprised by that.....

I definitely agree with @mahgister when he says that the room's acoustic problems (peaks and nulls at the very least) can be positively influenced and very effectively smoothed out and flattened to a substantial degree actively as he says, even without ever resorting to EQ. 

That's an additional topic, but one that's definitely relevant...not nearly as unrelated as you might first think.

geoffkait,

"...test tone generator such as 315 Hz, for example..."

Is there a reason you picked 315 Hz or it can be anything else? Maybe a range that would be the most helpful? Wouldn't different frequencies act differently in different parts of the room?

The sciences of acoustics and psychoacoustics are applicable to room treatments.

I agree with @erik_squires ’ recommendation of Floyd Toole, in particular his book "Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms". Imo the third (most recent) edition is the one to get.

Another excellent source is Earl Geddes. His book "Premium Home Theater: Design and Construction" is now available for download free. Don’t be put off by the title - most of the book is applicable to high end two-channel. Just skip the chapters which obviously don’t apply to home audio:

http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/HT/Home_theater.pdf

Chapter 5, "Room Acoustics", is the most obviously applicable, and includes sections on Spacious, Localization, and Timbre.

I used to engage in armchair-quarterbacking recommendations of room acoustic treatments, until I spent some time in couple of rooms that had been treated by a real professional, Jeff Hedback. A real professional acoustician can tell you where you need diffusion, absorption, and reflection, and how much. (By way of analogy, a professional crossover designer will determine where you need inductance, capacitance, and resistance, and how much.) Jeff is still affordable and his company is called Hedback Designed Acoustics. Here is an article he wrote for GIK Acoustics, it is about much more than just diffusion, imo it’s very much worth reading:

https://www.gikacoustics.com/diffusion-by-jeff-hedback/

Duke