Romy the Cat wrote:

The only concerns in my room are ceiling and a small fraction of back wall. The back wall is very small – I am sure I will take care of it. The ceiling is a bitch however. My leading idea is to use the sails in the same way how I did in my old room – I like the result a lot.  To use sails in this room is nit more complicate as the room has ceiling pitch, ceiling fans, skylights , light-painted (sea sand color) and I would like to keep it airy qualities.

unicon wrote:

that old sails does just control <1khz reflections ... you need to control your mid bass n basic bass frequencies first.

I guess you meant >1khz reflections? Yes, it will and it is erectly what I am looking form – to subdue the HF noise.

unicon wrote:

the room i see has lotz of potentials but how much u can get from it depends on making a link between decor n acoustic ... there you can have lots of acoustic options which can fit your decors too(in my idea). anyhow make it clear whats your goal in there ... starting to correct the fundamental modes ? or just first order reflection control ? symmetrical stereo image ? watching your pool while listening ? i know your goal is to get a decent sound out of macondo... but in your room its not your will which can make it sound right its the acoustics parameters which make your room sound. first step in my idea is to do nothing acoustically and just set up your mid bass n listen and try tuning and positioning macondo with your naked room(you can add your decors in  problematic positions to control reflections and some modal control but try to get symmetric sound however) , how much you can succeed  in this level reveals ho much work needs to be done later. i can help more if u like it.

I very much would like to hear your advice or to get help from anybody else but at this point the only think that I can deal with are upper frequencies and only conditional as I do not know how how lower octaves will sound in my room..

Saying all of it I would like to pass what are my strategic ideas are. I do not like and if it possible I would like do not use any acoustic devises under 1kHz. I know it might sound ridicules to many audio people as they trained to believe in different things – bass need to be controlled. I have different ideas bout bass control. I have heard much big installations where bass traps were used. If discard the quality of bass and to pay attention only to the room acoustic properly of bass in those installations then I did not like anything I heard. You see, the bass controls is usually was done by an array of bass traps. I truly do not like this approach. The bass traps, the biggest one, have only limited effectiveness on the spectra of interest and usually have much more effectiveness in 2-3 octave above the spectra of interest. This make bass to sound less problematic but it dries out the bass’ overtones, - I do not like it. Also, the bass traps are a solution for single box speaker. People by some kind of big Wilson where all spectra is radiated from the same footprint and they have no option for creative interaction with bass positioning and crossovers. I mean those speakers are not made for rooms or with respect of the rooms but they made “as is” and then the expectation is that the room will be corrected in respect what the given speakers would demand.

I have absolutely opposite approach.

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=863

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=2553

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=4421

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1517

I would like do not correct my room under 1Khz but rather to optimize my Macondo to take advantage of whatever good or bad my room does. BTW, this is one of the postulates of Macondo Axioms. So, my hope is that I have a full control over 4 channels (!!!) that I will have under 1Khz then I might manage them to operate properly, in some case it might be asymmetrical) in agreement with what my specific room does. Of cause it is juts objectives and hope, the empirical practice will show what is doing on what the midbass will be done.

There is one more thing that I absolutely do not know how to predict. My entire Midbass project is standing upon the fact that my back firing midbass source will be located way above listening position and at relatively sharp angle. This shall make the midbass to fire in the cathedral ceiling and will create the situation when bass descent from ceiling or from… nowhere. I absolutely hooked on this idea - to have midbass present- everywhere. I am very confident that I will be able to tune this effect with very precise dialing the midbass crossover. I do anticipate the effect to be staggeringly interesting. However, I do not know how tolerant will be this effect and how much it have leeway for vertical repositioning of listener.  I might tune the proper sound for my listening chair but what will happen if I stand up and walk around the room. I do predict that in this case the sound on my room will disintegrate. How much will it disintegrate only time and the practical test will show. There are ways to correct this effect – for instance to use one step shaper filter for midbass crossover. I was thinking to put a motion detector in a mouth on one of the horn and if the motion detector sees a person walking then it engage one more filter that make the slope sharper. I will see how it will go as the horns are built and installed. Since I did not see it anywhere and pretty much invented the idea then I would like to name the concept as Active Motion Crossover.

The reason why I tell all of it is to demonstrate that my objective is not to modify the room but to expect-match the loudspeaker channels to wheat room is tend to do. Of course they are juts objective at this point and there are no practical successes but I am only beginning to play with the room more or less seriously. I did the very same with my older room and the result was truly spectacular for the room. I do not see why I would not apply the same successful patterns to my new room. Also, nothing is written on stone. What I express is a set of my current convictions. If reality strikes my convictions as faulty then I can but up other convictions. I do not market my convictions as a “package” and do not look them to provide benefits to nobody besides myself. I myself am very interested to challenge my convictions and to see if the ideas will work.  To set up this room will be very interesting project but at this point, with midbass underway, I feel that I have a control over the situation. I anticipate that if everything goes as I planed then it will take for me to the end of the year to make the room to sound in a way that would give me back my normal hi-fi arrogance. I am sure that it is not the only objective of this project my hi-hi-fi arrogance is very valuable to me and I would like do not lose it.

Romy the Cat wrote:

The bass traps, the biggest one, have only limited effectiveness on the spectra of interest and usually have much more effectiveness in 2-3 octave above the spectra of interest. This make bass to sound less problematic but it dries out the bass’ overtones, - I do not like it. Also, the bass traps are a solution for single box speaker.

Romy the Cat wrote:

I would like do not correct my room under 1Khz but rather to optimize my Macondo to take advantage of whatever good or bad my room does.

well I am not dictating that you fail trying this way because there are many mixed parameters out there in real world which can change the way you can get a good sound. so i never say not do or try not that. it is a MUST .

but the basic is tuning your room bass first because there we have many good reasons for it like:

1- That is where all the positioning matters and change A LOT.like moving sound source to other side of a room.

2- you cant run away or try to get any good sound if you have problem in that region 

figure it out 

and if you wonder where if anyone making or doing any real good to acoustics :

there is a good acoustic company in u.s.a called ASC the owner Art Noxon is knowing what he is doing and the tube traps they have made can absorb down to 20hz ... 

he always friendly for any question about rooms and etc... 

he can give you really good tips beside what he can offer you commercially 

read their site about how to trap bass without drying uppppper bass:

http://www.asc-hifi.com/acoustic_basics.htm#1

in article there is a link too about it i dunno where to find it atm

I know what you may think.  dw I am not an  ASC worker

I myself built a new type of tube trap and used it in my room and the results are decent and what I was looking for.

I create a new threat for it soon cuz its been finished ... and there i share more info

rgz

Romy the Cat wrote:

OK, I disconnected my MiniMe speakers and left only Macondo to care sound in the room. I was listing for the last week Macondo. There is no bass, just upperbass horn at the bottom and The Injection channel a full range. It is OK sound but truly nothing spectacular or I would even say interesting. I think I need to review the whole Macondo arrangement and design it from ground up in the new room.  this how I was able to make Macondo in the old room and this I think what I need to do here to assure that each element to perform at own optimum best.   So, I disconcerted all channels with exception of MF and Upperbass and let them to play alone. They are the key MF sound and I know how they need to be. What can I say – I do not like what I hear. It lacks dynamics, it has very diluted colors, it reverberant, it just dirty and has no sophisticated finesse in details as it use to have. Also, the upperbass is very dry and not as lash as I would like it to be. There are a bunch of other problems…. Well, it pretty much it – there is no reason to go anywhere further until the problems with those two channels are addressed and until the channels will perform as I would like then to do perform The fight for new Macondo has began.

I checked everything in the system and did not see any fault that might be responsible for the effect.  I is just a MF driver and it is severely compromised. Instead of my typical luxuriant and incredibly complex MF I have almost digitized copy of MF. I know, it sounds to somebody who did not hear Macondo that I am kissing myself in ass – a typical behavior for only-audio people, but it happens only with somebody who did not hear the Macondo. In addition the Macondo’s MF exponentials get worth with volume goes up. Playing loud it truly is falling apart, and it is juts MF driver!

It got to be the room just can’t hold I concluded….

So, I took from basemen a dozen of Sonex large sheets (2’x5’ I believe) and load the listening room with it. In addition I have 12 RPG panels that I put in the room as well. Plus the sail on the ceiling… Plus two dozen of soft things that I spread around the room. Plus one fuzzy Pussy. The room looked like God just vomited all over the room. However, to my pleasure and hate the  MF got MUCH cleaner, not perfect however. The colors and the nuances went back but at large volume the MF drive in some odd distortions. Then, juts for experiment I did what I hated to do – I covered the large 25” by 7” feet glass window behind the Macondo with soft, 4 layered,  1” think, fabric blinds (very cool blinds for acoustic purpose – and the come with the house!). All negative problem are instantly evaporated! The MF went to be saturated and super expressive.

This is very good and very bad. Very good is that I know the problem and I know the direction I need to do..But it is also very bad as I do not want to convert my living room into a dentist office and I absolutely love the view from my large windows and door between the speakers. I was under impression that the glass of the window and doors behind the speakers will not affect Sound to much as the Macondo is well extended into the room and there are good 10 feet between horn mouths and the glass. Not a chance!!!

OK, I need to devise some kind of décor and treatment that would do as Russians say: “to keep wolfs full and the sheeps unhurt”. To be continue….

Well, I understand all of it but I not exactly agree that I need to convert the room into English grandmother style, of even worst into physical lab. In fact I have seen a few relatively loose rooms that sounded fine and I hope that the specifics of my room would allow me to go away with a need of too heavy treatment.  It is obviously the I will need to put more treatment on the walls then I initially expected but I still would like do not go to the extend as Jessie did in the image above.

A few things that I would like to bring up. The grass behind the Macondo is MUCH more affective destroyer of sound then the rest treatment in the entire room. I did not expect it and I thought the glass was too far. In the past I give a lot criticism to the people who put TV between their speakers but the TVs were always between the speakers and they always are effective. In my case the glass 10 feet behind and I thought it will be tolerable – no lack on this – the glass is main offender in my room. I have good blinds to cover the glass. They are thick soft tubes and they cure the sound VERY dramatically. However, the room becomes a bit anticlimacticy-boring with the blinds down....

I began to think about the SOME acoustic treatment treatments that I would use. I do have some idea by my concern is colors. I want only colors that I want. There are companies that do custom colors and custom shapes. This one is for instance.

http://www.pinta-acoustic.com/products_WallPanels.php

http://www.pinta-acoustic.com/products_ColorChart.php#SONEX

They do the Ceiling Clouds as well

http://www.pinta-acoustic.com/products_WWclouds.php

However, their prices are ridicules. Some wooden diffuser panels that I would like to use are also cost a lot and they are not exactly what I would like to have. So, I wonder if it make sense for me to make my own acoustic treatment. The foam and Styrofoam cutters are very simple to do (hot wire) and I can ask my carpenter to live for me his machines and then I will be able to make my own skyline diffusers by my own specification. I do not know yet, I still am contemplating the options….

jessie.dazzle wrote:

You might try the Foam Factory; they are easy to deal with, inexpensive, have online ordering, quick turn around and can ship anywhere. They are NOT a typical audiophile-oriented acoustic room treatment supplier. Nevertheless, they are equipped to cut foam for this purpose. Their main business is in supplying seat cushions for all the Michigan folks who have boats on the nearby lake and cabins "up North". They also do custom mattresses (from "medical memory", visco-elastic foam). They are used to working with custom requests. I'd be willing to bet that even with shipping to Massachusetts, they'd cost you far less than anyone else you might find. Use your imagination; they'll work with you. http://www.usafoam.com/acousticfoam/acousticfoam.html

Yep, this Foam Factory look good and the prices are very good, thanks. They do not have the right light colors that I would like to have.  When I spoke with others they had a bit higher prices but as soon I mention that I need custom size (8 by 72) then they wanted almost $300 per sheet - ridicules! I might get standard sheet and to make my own wire cutter…

jessie.dazzle wrote:

Rather than absorbing, you might consider diffusing via thick, wooden slat blinds (in a light-colored wood for that "airy" feeling). Good ones are expensive, so you'd want to verify by doing an experiment before investing. They do not visually choke off the room unless completely closed, which you'd likely never do, as they woldn't be much good as diffusers unless partially open.

I was thinking about them already and I have some other options as well.

zanon wrote:

what is impact of TV between speaker?  I too assume it is only bad, so have never experimented with having TV in and then taking it out. Are you saying it can have good effect?

I am keep listening my just two channels: MF + upperbass. They sound good and I know this sound VERY well but there is one phenomena that I can’t explained/ in the old room my upperbass went to 95Hz-100Hz. In this new room it doe 140Hz BUT subjectively it is MUCH if not deeper but at least fulfilling. In the old room the 95Hz was not sufficient with lower bass. In the new room the 140Hz sound like the whole orchestra! Very beautiful and very strange. I am listening now Queen of Spades by Gergiev and those Tchaikovsky’s contrabassoons are just out of this world. They are not to low but so palatable and so dynamic that it makes me to jump on my chair.  I have no idea where this  dynamics and this perception of “sufficiency” in bass comes from in the new room.

It might only appear that it is irrelevant subject. In reality this is the subject of my LONG DREAM… and I have almost realized it.

I spend entire days to redo the Air Conditioner system to accommodate it for my listening room. The house has a center air-conditioner but it did not work as I would like to. It reduces the temperature but it was now what I was looking for. What I was looking for was the Air Conditioner produce the cold in my listing room that would make my testikles to become rectangular.   Now the Air Conditioner drops 5 degree with 5 minutes with all my tube equipment on and temperature outside over 80s. THAT is how I want it to be BUT there is one more critical condition – I wanted my super cool air come to my listening room absolutely silent.

Romy the Cat wrote:

In fact those ASC panels do not look too obtrusive. How does they impact sound? I do not know yet – will be listening tomorrow....

While I was handing my ASC I was shocked how much HF I have behind the speakers. All of it made me to think that the Macondo frame needs to be revised with respect to acoustics behind. At least I will absolutely certainly cover the boxes of Injection Channels with 2” black foam, if I will be able to find it.