I Can't Take This Anymore - This Is What You Get? With All That Treatment?! - www.AcousticFields.com

⭐ Acoustic Treatment Build Plans: www.acousticfi...
📉 Free Room Analysis: www.acousticfi...
🎓 eBooks & Forum: www.acousticfi...
In this first episode of the "I Can't Take This Anymore" series, Dennis Foley addresses common acoustic treatment mistakes. He critiques the improper use of building insulation for sound absorption, emphasizing how it negatively affects sound quality and frequency response. Dennis shows a clear example of poor acoustic results due to incorrect treatment and contrasts it with a well-treated room using proper materials. Watch to learn the right way to approach room acoustics for optimal performance.
#acoustics #acoustictreatment #roomacoustics #acousticfields

[@gerhardwestphalen]

You're comparing an REW measurement with probably 1/12 smoothing to an RTA measurement with 1/3 band. That's completely pointless. Show a proper measurement of your room and it probably wouldn't be very different from the other room. You've mentioned sharing measurements from your rooms before but I don't see anything beyond these RTA responses. I've measured empty rooms that look like that. If you're confident in your rooms' performances then share some REW measurements include spectrogram and ETC.

[@Error2username]

I am New to mic meassurements, but the first thing i thought about was the same as you, where is the before Vs after? I think some rooms dont need much, but some rooms do.

[@AcousticFields]

Your not seeing the complete picture. We are teaching through comparison. This is a process. This is an educational channel for my followers. Please respsect that parameter.

[@gerhardwestphalen]

@@AcousticFields Then please show us a comparison so we can learn how your approach is better to what was in the other room. You compared apples and oranges and then said "look at the difference." How are we supposed to learn from this? What difference are we supposed to be seeing here?

[@gerhardwestphalen]

@@AcousticFields a beginner has no way to compare these 2 things so I don't see the value of showing this and what they're supposed to take away from it. As someone with experience in this who can actually interpret and compare these drastically different graphs, I can tell you that there's very little difference purely looking at the frequency response (which is all the data you're giving and having us go off of...). I see a big peak at 35Hz and dip at 170Hz in the first. I see a big peak at 80Hz and dip at 125Hz in your measurements. If your measurement wasn't smoothed it would be just as bad as in the other measurement. So what difference am I supposed to be seeing? What am I supposed to take away from this (either as a beginner or otherwise)?

[@VicFerrari3]

@@gerhardwestphaleni came away with the same head-scratcher.

[@wallalo]

the second measurement doesn't seem like a great result to me... in any case the two measurements are of a different type, why compare them?

[@AcousticFields]

To show general concepts. This is a teaching process.

[@saint6563]

"Apples & Oranges": Different room + different graph. Undoubtedly different systems. "Before & After" would be better.

[@AcousticFields]

What would be better if individuals would take a more macro view to acoustics.

[@subtractivemusic]

Good sales video for your product and service. And I mean that sincerely. If there's a better solution out there, I encourage people to use it. However, I am a big believer in room correction EQ. That could be manually done, through software on a laptop, a standalone device like miniDSP or IK Multimedia ARC Studio, or a combination of all of them. In the case of using room EQ correction, that frequency curve with +/-20db in certain ranges could be easily flattened. And I guarantee you the room was worse before the treatment. A more forgiving video would have been you saying that with building insulation it will get you halfway there, and room correction EQ will get you the rest of the way. Alternatively, you could use your superior materials and designs, and not have to use room EQ correction.

[@AcousticFields]

We dont like digital manipulations for room correction unless the energy issues manipulated are below 90 hz. We find the process destroys the harmonics of both voice and music.

[@audiononsense1611]

That's just nonsense....

[@royhuijsmans6117]

@@audiononsense1611 No he is right. first fix it acousticly . The last thing you wanna do is use DSP. Same as a good amp need as less but high quality parts, best power supply as possible and correct placement and shielding of components. Same it is with roomtreatment. If you don't want to do his approach , or you don't have the money or you want a livingroom with music in it, all fine , offcourse, but that is not a dedicated listening room. Nothing wrong with those choises. but do you want best sound possible.... From a audiophile point of view you allways want to keep the signal as pure as possible.

[@Stelios.Posantzis]

2:30 These speakers seem to be dipoles. Care to comment on how one should approach room treatment for dipole speakers vs. that for monopoles, which one is harder to do and to what order of magnitude? I should think that treatment for dipoles should be far more judicious as with dipoles you actually *rely* on the reflections to get the desired response from the speakers, (i.e., the response they were designed to produce at the listening position)? Am I correct?

[@AcousticFields]

Both diffusion and absorption are viable with diploles. The treatment type depends on distances and personal listening practices.

[@zvonimirkolenik654]

You should compare empty room and room with acoustic treatment and RT 60 also before get some conclusion.

[@AcousticFields]

Once again your missing the point. Your so focused on the micro you cant see the macro. Its like your not seeing the room for the walls.

[@peanutbutterjellyjam2179]

Apart from the problems with the sound, the sheer amount of panels uglify the entire room. Even if it were to sound good, it' would only do so in the dark.

[@AcousticFields]

All room boundary surfaces produce acoustical issues and will require treatment. If resolution is your goal, you must make a choice.

[@RyanRusty26]

Thanks for the video, Dennis. Many don't realize it right now but we're fortunate to have your expertise. To the commenters: step outside the usual box and approach room acoustics with a scientific mindset. It’s all about understanding real energy in the room. I challenge you to fire up REW, turn off all the noise, and observe how even a distant ding or doink travels through your space. Sound energy is powerful, and ignoring it just because it’s invisible is a big mistake.

[@AcousticFields]

Its a life error. You dont get many of those to redo. I can take a 5,000 system and make it sound like 50,000 in a properly treated room. I can take a 50,000 system and make it sound like 5,000 in a no treatment room. People should treat the room first before putting in any gear. They would spend less on gear and get more sound quality. I would estimate that only 20% of people with 25 k + systems hear everything their systems are offering.

[@mrpositronia]

Thanks for another lesson. Cue the people who 'know better''.

[@AcousticFields]

The issue is the comparitive base one uses. Know better than whom. Its best to stay with the facts. The facts are always friendly.

[@flex-cx9bi]

Your treated room have almost 20dB difference between 80 and 125 Hz, so what is the difference ? Yours at least as bad...

[@AcousticFields]

Treating a room begins with understanding the room as a complete entity. Your so focused on one part, you will never be able to see the complete picture. This is common among those that never build or treat a room. Most can identify the issues but have no idea on how to fix those issues. Stay tuned for your new education.

[@flex-cx9bi]

@@AcousticFields Always happy to learn more, so I will check in. Don't see the big difference in response between the measurement in the clip so please educate me.

[@RatedBforBold]

What an ugly room

[@AcousticFields]

Not attractive and poor performance. Its like building insulation. It is cheap but has the wrong rates and levels of absorption for music and voice.

[@RatedBforBold]

@@AcousticFields Question, in my room I have some tower speakers that are three-way. Sometimes the ultra low sounds muddy and awkward is that because of the room and is there anyway to really treat it? They are far away from the sidewalls, but they are about a foot away from the front wall. I know you don’t have the measurements and each room is different but what do you think ?

[@googoo-gjoob]

im in love with those GR-Rsearch NX Oticas

[@AcousticFields]

Best to keep that to yourself. The room could care less what gear you use. Love your room first then everything else is a bonus.