Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Room treatment for listening music / measurements (Read 87189 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Room treatment for listening music / measurements

Reply #25
let's say I do 60 % of whatever it could be done

The single best thing you can do to improve your listening situation is to get 2-inch thick acoustic panels and put them at the side-wall reflection points.

I have what I consider a fabulous system. Two in fact. Neither has $10,000 speakers. But both systems have highly competent and affordable speakers, plus extensive bass trapping and other treatment.

--Ethan
I believe in Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method

Room treatment for listening music / measurements

Reply #26
Quote
One issue is room size.  Smaller rooms add an approximate +12 dB octave bass boost starting at a frequency that is inversely proportional to their size. IOW a really small room adds bass at a frequency that cuts in at a fairly high point such as over 120 Hz.


Earl Geddes, whose measurements I trust more than mine, says that his measurements demonstrate that home listening rooms, in general, are not sealed well enough to have a 12dB/octave bass ramp-up from cabin gain like cars do with their windows closed. 



That's probably correct. I live in a 5 year old apartment next to a busy downtown street in central Oslo. Average noise level right outside the apartment is 75dB. Building regulations require that the average indoor noise level is a maximum of 42dB. "Sealed" is a good word for the feeling you get when you close a window or the balcony door.  Still, the bass boost in the room (at 50hz) is about 10dB, not 12.  I would assume the peak in most older apartments / houses is less.

Anyhow - regardless if the boost is 6, 10 or even 12dB -  as was mentioned earlier in the thread, EQ is very useful to reduce this effect.
Thorbjorn

Room treatment for listening music / measurements

Reply #27
let's say I do 60 % of whatever it could be done

The single best thing you can do to improve your listening situation is to get 2-inch thick acoustic panels and put them at the side-wall reflection points.

I have what I consider a fabulous system. Two in fact. Neither has $10,000 speakers. But both systems have highly competent and affordable speakers, plus extensive bass trapping and other treatment.

--Ethan

Ethan, did you read Floyd Tooles book "Sound reproduction, loudspeakers and rooms"? If so, what do you think about his comments on "Apparent source width" and the desirability of side-wall reflections and/or artificial (delayed) side reflections?

-k

Room treatment for listening music / measurements

Reply #28
Not at all. You want to hear from your audio system what you would hear at a live performance. In both cases, the frequency response of your ears is the same.

Ok in comparison to a live performance you attended you want to hear the exact same thing.

But what about studio recordings? So lets say you can't hear anything above 10khz. But the musican did, and he tuned everything to sound as good as posible with a spectrum up to 16khz.


It wouldn't make that much difference. It's also moderately probable that the musican was so hearing damaged due to his occupation that he couldn't hear anything above 5 KHz.

Quote
That means you can't experience the whole composition the way the creator did.


Musican's  rarely, if  ever hear the performance like the listeners do. Most of the time they hear primarily themselves playing, and possibly listen to one or two other performers.

Quote
So why not boosting these upper frequencies until you can hear them too (avoiding clipping and the like of course)?


Your example shows little experience with performing music or producing musical recordings. Nothing you talk about happens the way you say.


Room treatment for listening music / measurements

Reply #29
Quote
One issue is room size.  Smaller rooms add an approximate +12 dB octave bass boost starting at a frequency that is inversely proportional to their size. IOW a really small room adds bass at a frequency that cuts in at a fairly high point such as over 120 Hz.


Earl Geddes, whose measurements I trust more than mine, says that his measurements demonstrate that home listening rooms, in general, are not sealed well enough to have a 12dB/octave bass ramp-up from cabin gain like cars do with their windows closed. 


Knowing Earl's house as I do, that would be true there for many possible locations other than his actual multimedia room. His media room in the basement seals up like a vault. 

My prime listening room has so many big holes in it, we can't even tell where it ends and several other rooms begin.

But that's one set of extremes. A bedroom or study turned into a listening room or a home studio could be a counter-example.

Room treatment for listening music / measurements

Reply #30
Musican's  rarely, if  ever hear the performance like the listeners do. Most of the time they hear primarily themselves playing, and possibly listen to one or two other performers.

That's ture for musicans playing instruments, but what about music generated on synthesizers and computers? Most electronic music was created and heared by the author the same way the listeners does in the end. But even for traditional music there's some guy in the studio listening to it and turning the knobs until it sounds right to him.

If some kind of standard hearing calibration would be used from mastering to playback, then everybody could hear the same thing (in theory). Think of it like calibrating your monitor to make colors look the same on any device.

Room treatment for listening music / measurements

Reply #31
YOU WROTE:
"Bass traps:
1) Reduce peaks
2) Reduce nulls
3) Reduce ringing
4) All the above improve everywhere in a room,
and never made worse in some locations"

RG replies:
In spite of the fact that you are holding a huge cat
in your picture, and I like cats, I will continue to
argue with you until you give up and admit that
I was right all along.

Bass traps reduce reflections that cause uneven
frequency response when the reflections arrive
at the ears in-phase (peaks) or out of phase (troughs)
with direct sound from the speakers.  Bass traps are
less efficient as frequencies that need to be absorbed
decline.  That's where the EQ "band-aid" becomes very
useful -- parametric EQ is easier to set and more useful
as frequencies decline -- parametric EQ works best where
bass traps are least efficient.

You have taken the one accomplishment of bass traps
(absorbing reflections) and created four accomplishments. 
I have a problem with "reduces ringing" which seems to
duplicate "reduces peaks" and reduces (partial) nulls"

You may not realize that EQ "reduces ringing" too.

If you had a large +6dB bass peak in the 40 to 45Hz. range
at the sweet spot listening seat, those frequencies would be
too loud and fade to inaudibility too slowly. 

If you eliminated that +6dB bass peak with parametric EQ,
the frequencies would no longer be too loud and they would
fade to inaudibility faster.

In plain English, that means EQ reduces ringing too. 

Floyd Toole has discussed reduced ringing from the use of EQ in one of
his many white papers, so I'm not the only one making the claim.

Because bass traps are inefficient at the lowest frequencies,
and the lowest frequency room modes (first-order axial) tend to cause
the loudest bass booms, most people who use bass traps will not use
enough of them for those lowest frequency room modes, so will benefit
from the supplemental use of an inexpensive digital parametric EQ dedicated to
a subwoofer ... or a more expensive parametric EQ used with full range speakers.

And my cat could beat up your cat if he wanted to,
but he's sleeping now.

 


 


Room treatment for listening music / measurements

Reply #32
Musican's  rarely, if  ever hear the performance like the listeners do. Most of the time they hear primarily themselves playing, and possibly listen to one or two other performers.

That's true for musicans playing instruments, but what about music generated on synthesizers and computers?

If its being done interactively in real time, then there's no difference.

Quote
Most electronic music was created and heard by the author the same way the listeners does in the end.


Now you are in essence talking about the tiny minority of music that is performed by what is in essence, a one man band.

Quote
But even for traditional music there's some guy in the studio listening to it and turning the knobs until it sounds right to him.


That guy could be me. What I do is not in any way comparable to playing or singing music. Furthermore, if I mixed through a 10 KHz brick wall low pass filter, there would not be that much difference in how I would mix as compared to how I would mix if I could  hear clear up to 45 KHz.  The bottom line is that there is very little in music that happens above 10 KHz that can't be well managed by listening only to what is there below 10 KHz.

Quote
If some kind of standard hearing calibration would be used from mastering to playback, then everybody could hear the same thing (in theory). Think of it like calibrating your monitor to make colors look the same on any device.


Again, this is not how the real world works. Well-made recordings are usually made so that they sound as good as possible on a variety of audio systems from a portable player to a car audio system to a boom box to a high end audio system. The nature of hearing and music is such that this is not mission impossible.

Room treatment for listening music / measurements

Reply #33
Ethan, did you read Floyd Tooles book "Sound reproduction, loudspeakers and rooms"? If so, what do you think about his comments on "Apparent source width" and the desirability of side-wall reflections and/or artificial (delayed) side reflections?

I have not read the book, but I'm aware of his position. I disagree pretty strongly, and so does everyone else who has heard my living room system with and without side wall absorbers. However, in a large room, reflections from the side walls and ceiling (and floor) may be less damaging and thus more tolerable. I haven't experimented with that yet. My living room is 25 feet front to back and 16 feet wide. My home studio is 34 feet front to back and 14 feet wide at the mix position. In both of these rooms absorbing the early reflections sounds much better than not absorbing.

To me the issue is being faithful to the intent of the recording engineers. All of the ambience and reverb needed and wanted is already in the recording. You can clearly hear this "large" sound with earphones. But when played in a small room, early reflections drown out the embedded ambience and make the sound smaller. I want to hear what the mixing and mastering engineers heard! And in the majority of cases they worked in a room with reflections absorbed, or a large room with the side walls angled to deflect the reflections away from their ears without needing absorption.

This comes up so often that last week I made a video to let people hear the difference. I bought a bunch of Masonite panels and stuck them over my existing absorbers, then recorded music at the listening position with and without the panels in place. Sadly, there wasn't as much difference in the recording as I had hoped, so I decided not to add the video to our site. You can hear the difference very clearly in the room! So I'll continue to think of ways to convey that in a video. In the mean time, the video is on my company's site, but hidden because it's not linked. I'd be glad to get opinions from this forum. So here's the link, and please let me know what you think:

First Reflections

--Ethan
I believe in Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method

Room treatment for listening music / measurements

Reply #34
In spite of the fact that you are holding a huge cat in your picture, and I like cats, I will continue to argue with you until you give up and admit that I was right all along.

Back atcha pal.

Quote
Bass traps are less efficient as frequencies that need to be absorbed decline.

Yes, of course. But bass traps can be effective to as low as 30 Hz if you have enough of them. In the video Hearing is Believing on my company's site you'll see a roomful of bass traps have a profound effect on the response and ringing of the lowest peak near 40 Hz. For people that can manage only a "normal" amount of bass trapping, they can still get a meaningful improvement to below 80 Hz.

Quote
That's where the EQ "band-aid" becomes very useful ... parametric EQ works best where bass traps are least efficient.

I already agreed that at very low frequencies EQ is acceptable. I also already stated that I use a one-band cut-only EQ in my own living room HT system.

Quote
I have a problem with "reduces ringing" which seems to duplicate "reduces peaks" and reduces (partial) nulls"

No, these are separate achievements. EQ can reduce a peak but it does not change the decay rate. Only bass traps can do that.

Quote
If you eliminated that +6dB bass peak with parametric EQ, the frequencies would no longer be too loud and they would fade to inaudibility faster.

Yes, and no. Severe ringing muddies the sound of bass instruments because notes the player stopped half a second ago continue to sound in the room. So if you play an ascending scale cleanly on a bass, it will be muddier in the room as notes continue to sound, and overlap, subsequent notes. Yes, the volume aspect of the peak may be improved, but not the muddying overlapping effect. This is an important distinction that is readily audible. Well, it's readily audible if you're a bass player.

It's worth mentioning that a room resonance that extends the decay also slows the attack. EQ can't correct that either.

Quote
Floyd Toole has discussed reduced ringing from the use of EQ in one of his many white papers, so I'm not the only one making the claim.

I have never seen conclusive proof that ringing can be reduced in practice by EQ. I accept that it can happen in theory, but only for a very small location in the room. Move the microphone even an inch or two and the critical balance needed no longer exists. I've tested this twice now! I'm sure I linked to those articles, but here they are again:

Audyssey Report
EQ Versus Bass Traps

If you'd like to run your own tests and prove otherwise, I'll be glad to learn something new. But if you do this test and show ringing being reduced, please move the measuring microphone one foot in different directions and measure again (without changing the EQ). If you can't get rid of the ringing for both ears at the same time, let alone for the next seat over on the couch, then it's not useful in practice.

Quote
the lowest frequency room modes (first-order axial) tend to cause the loudest bass booms

In some cases the second harmonic is worse because normal construction lets very low frequencies through the walls. At least that's the case in my own living room.

Quote
most people who use bass traps will not use enough of them

Again, that's their problem and their decision. If someone wants truly excellent sound, and is willing to pay for it, the best solution is lots and lots of bass traps optionally hidden behind attractive faux walls.

Quote
And my cat could beat up your cat if he wanted to, but he's sleeping now.

Your cat could probably beat up my cat even while sleeping. My precious monster Bear is about 18 years old, overweight, and his only motivation is eating.

--Ethan
I believe in Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method

Room treatment for listening music / measurements

Reply #35
And my thinking - I'd buy an parametric EQ, get measuring equipment, and measure the response from the listening armchair - correcting where needed. Now I have done all it could be done, given the situation. Am I right? (I am not trying to get perfect results, more a real-life situation)

I think you need to define "measurement" before there can be consensus on this. In some cases a too-coarse measurement or one that does not factor in time response can lead you astray. Some insist that the ear is the most/only valid measurement system.

Generally speaking, EQ holds the potential to improve things at your reference point with the possible side effect of making things worse other places in the room.

Those practiced in the art of setting up rooms know to make multiple measurements and to be wary of extreme EQ settings. If they can't get reasonable uniformity or if they need to lean too much on EQ, they'll go back and do another iteration of room treatment.

Room treatment for listening music / measurements

Reply #36
This comes up so often that last week I made a video to let people hear the difference. I bought a bunch of Masonite panels and stuck them over my existing absorbers, then recorded music at the listening position with and without the panels in place. Sadly, there wasn't as much difference in the recording as I had hoped, so I decided not to add the video to our site. You can hear the difference very clearly in the room! So I'll continue to think of ways to convey that in a video. In the mean time, the video is on my company's site, but hidden because it's not linked. I'd be glad to get opinions from this forum. So here's the link, and please let me know what you think:

First Reflections

I can't hear an obvious difference in the recording. I'm going to guess that the reason that it is obviously audible in the room is because it is a difference you notice when you move your head. The early reflections in a small room will cause comb filtering. Moving your head will slide the combs around. This is a natural thing that happens in real spaces and so we naturally hear around it; some listeners may actually use it to hear better and may be unsettled when it is not present.

I do appreciate that when listing to a reproduction in an undeadened room you're hearing (at least) two rooms. Most of the mastering and mixing suites I've seen are set up like your room so you're definitely hearing it like the professionals do. However, these professional do realize that what they're doing is critical listening and understand and compensate for the fact that most listeners will not be reproducing the material in such an environment nor listening in this critical way.

Room treatment for listening music / measurements

Reply #37
I ORIGINALLY WROTE:
"If you eliminated that +6dB bass peak with parametric EQ, the frequencies would no longer be too loud and they would fade to inaudibility faster."
YOU WROTE IN REPLY:
"Yes, and no. Severe ringing muddies the sound of bass instruments because notes the player stopped half a second ago continue to sound in the room. So if you play an ascending scale cleanly on a bass, it will be muddier in the room as notes continue to sound, and overlap, subsequent notes. Yes, the volume aspect of the peak may be improved, but not the muddying overlapping effect."
RG REPLIES TO THE REPLY:
First of all, a bass note may include half the total sound energy, or less, at the fundamental frequency, and half or more at harmonics of that frequency. 

The parametric EQ is used mainly to reduce the SPL of the fundamental frequency, while bass traps are needed for acoustics problems affecting the harmonics. 

In addition, early reflection sound absorbers may be needed to address acoustics problems affecting the attack of the bass note, which will be in the mid-range frequencies (the "pluck" of a bass guitar string, and the "slap" of a kick drum, for two common examples, are not in the bass frequencies, and could cause some distracting early reflections off the side walls, floor and ceiling.
.
YOU WROTE:
"It's worth mentioning that a room resonance that extends the decay also slows the attack. EQ can't correct that either."
RG REPLIES:
Irrelevant.
Bass note attacks are in the mid-range frequencies and the mid-range frequencies are not relevant for a discussion of problems with standing waves in the sub-80Hz. frequencies.

A typical room mode in a home listening room will attenuate by 30dB in 200 milliseconds (-30dB is my definition of inaudibility -- in reality deep bass may become inaudible faster because low frequencies are hard to hear at reasonable SPLs to begin with).

If a bass note fundamental frequency peak is reduced by 3 to 6dB using a parametric EQ, the decay of that note will fade to inaudibility faster (than 200 milliseconds). 

If you want to call the decay "ringing", then the ringing will not reach the same SPL peaks after EQ, AND will fade to inaudibility faster.  This will happen whether you agree, or not!
.
YOU WROTE:
"In some cases the second harmonic is worse because normal construction lets very low frequencies through the walls. At least that's the case in my own living room."
RG REPLIES:
True, and those second harmonics are the frequencies where bass traps are more efficient and more useful.

And if my wife was reading this, she'd think bass traps had something to do with fishing.



Room treatment for listening music / measurements

Reply #38
a bass note may include half the total sound energy, or less, at the fundamental frequency, and half or more at harmonics of that frequency.

Yes! The last time I measured my Fender bass when plucked at the usual position over the pickup, the fundamental was about 10 dB softer than the second harmonic. And that's ONLY the second harmonic. As I said earlier, the speaking range of bass instruments is mostly 80 Hz and above.

Quote
The parametric EQ is used mainly to reduce the SPL of the fundamental frequency, while bass traps are needed for acoustics problems affecting the harmonics.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat that bass traps can target down to 40 Hz and even 30 Hz if they're good traps and you have enough of them.

Quote
Bass note attacks are in the mid-range frequencies and the mid-range frequencies are not relevant for a discussion of problems with standing waves in the sub-80Hz. frequencies.

OMG that is SO wrong! Look at this graph showing the ringing in a bedroom size space 200 Hz and below:



--Ethan
I believe in Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method

Room treatment for listening music / measurements

Reply #39
I WROTE:
"Bass note attacks are in the mid-range frequencies and the mid-range frequencies
are not relevant for a discussion of EQing bass peaks in the sub-80Hz. frequencies."

YOU REPLIED:
"OMG that is SO wrong! Look at this graph showing the ringing
in a bedroom size space 200 Hz and below"

NOW LET ME SAY THIS ABOUT THAT:
The attack of a bass note remains in the mid-range,
whether you believe it or not.
Since I have been discussing the use of parametric EQ
in the subwoofer range (under 80Hz.),
there is no reason to discuss the bass note "attack"
because it's way above a parametric EQ's useful range.

The chart you presented could not have been better ...
... to support my case:

It shows two room modes under 80Hz.
that will usually need parametric EQ to control,
because very few audiophiles use enough bass traps
to absorb reflections at those frequencies
(in 43 years as an audiophile, I've only been in
ONE listening room with enough bass
traps to control the lowest room modes)
... and your chart also shows many room modes
above the EQ's useful range, meaning that
bass traps are still needed, whether or not
EQ is used to fight bass peaks caused
by the first order axial room modes
(at the lowest frequencies where bass traps
are least efficient).

Agree with me now --
it will save so much time.

RG



Room treatment for listening music / measurements

Reply #40
Guys, yes, most of the attack isn't below the Schroder frequency in most any listening room at home. It's also in the low midrange. BUT

I repeat BUT hangover in the bass region will remove the time alignment of the bass sensation with the midrange components of the attack.

So both matter. Goodness.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Room treatment for listening music / measurements

Reply #41
The attack of a bass note remains in the mid-range, whether you believe it or not.

Just for fun I replaced the bass track in one of my recent pop tunes with a synth set to play pure sine waves. The tune is in A, so the main bass notes you'll hear are 110 Hz, then the F below (87.3 Hz) when it changes to that chord. Now, this isn't the best bass tone in the world, and without any overtones it's not as clear as I'd use for a final mix. But I think it makes the point that bass punch and clarity can happen well below the midrange:

Lullaby Excerpt (500 KB)

I'll leave this file up for at least a few days in case others here are interested.

Quote
It shows two room modes under 80Hz. that will usually need parametric EQ to control

We're going around and around again Richard. I already agreed that using EQ is okay at low frequencies. It's not as good as having enough bass traps, but it's an acceptable bandaid.

Quote
very few audiophiles use enough bass traps to absorb reflections at those frequencies

Again, this is their problem. If someone prefers to spend $5k on cryo'd RCA cables (sorry, interconnects) rather than good acoustics, I am powerless to stop them.

Quote
in 43 years as an audiophile, I've only been in ONE listening room with enough bass traps to control the lowest room modes

You really need to visit me. I just added new killer bass traps in my living room - a new product my company will announce soon. These traps have more than 8 sabins of absorption at 40 Hz, which based on their front surface area is equal to an Absorption Coefficient of 0.71. Amazingly, the traps are all but invisible when placed in corners, so they have very high WAF too. My point isn't to brag about a new product, but to reiterate once again that bass traps spank EQ every day of the week.

Quote
Agree with me now -- it will save so much time.

LOL, I don't think we really disagree on all that much.

--Ethan
I believe in Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method

Room treatment for listening music / measurements

Reply #42
YOU WROTE:
"Amazingly, the (new) traps are all but invisible when placed in corners, so they have very high WAF too. My point isn't to brag about a new product, but to reiterate once again that bass traps spank EQ every day of the week."

RG:
Leave it to a true entrepreneur to get in a plug for his products at every opportunity ("Now you take my bass traps ... PLEASE!") and imply his alleged new product looks better than the only alternative I know of (a floor to ceiling stack of pink fiberglass insulation rolls in all four corners of the room)? 

YOU WROTE:
LOL, I don't think we really disagree on all that much.

RG:
This subject is very important for better reproduction of sound in our relatively small home listening rooms, but would not be interesting without a big disagreement over something, even if the something is not much.  And as any REAL audiophile knows, all audio problems can be solved by changing wires, so no one really neeeds needs bass traps and parametric bass EQ?

Further information in this report:
http://www.infinitysystems.com/home/technology/whitepapers/rabos.pdf

Room treatment for listening music / measurements

Reply #43
I think you need to define "measurement" before there can be consensus on this. In some cases a too-coarse measurement or one that does not factor in time response can lead you astray. Some insist that the ear is the most/only valid measurement system.
Generally speaking, EQ holds the potential to improve things at your reference point with the possible side effect of making things worse other places in the room.
Those practiced in the art of setting up rooms know to make multiple measurements and to be wary of extreme EQ settings. If they can't get reasonable uniformity or if they need to lean too much on EQ, they'll go back and do another iteration of room treatment.


I really don't care about the rest of the room, and how it sounds there. All I care is my (virtual) armchair where I sit in front of my system, and the sound I am getting sitting there. I will not move it, therefore measurements should be made in the position of my ears in that chair.
i see some chaps are into serious talk, and all I wanted the procedure
Error 404; signature server not available.

Room treatment for listening music / measurements

Reply #44
I have what I consider a fabulous system. Two in fact. Neither has $10,000 speakers. But both systems have highly competent and affordable speakers, plus extensive bass trapping and other treatment.
--Ethan


Hi Ethan,

Might I inquire what speakers? Thanks.
Interesting thread btw. I would venture to guess most here listen primarily to loudspeakers, not headphones?
Lot's of aspirin solutions for the pain, without anyone addressing the cancer itself. 

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Room treatment for listening music / measurements

Reply #45
Might I inquire what speakers?

My living room system is 5.1 surround with Mackie 624s, plus a killer SVS subwoofer with twin 12s - it's the size of a small refrigerator!

My home studio has a pair of old-school type JBL 4430s. The big ones with the 15-inch woofer and bi-radial horn. They're bi-amp powered by a pair of Crown PowerBase amplifiers with just over 1 KW.

--Ethan
I believe in Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method

Room treatment for listening music / measurements

Reply #46
Leave it to a true entrepreneur to get in a plug for his products at every opportunity

Of course!

Quote
would not be interesting without a big disagreement over something, even if the something is not much.

No kidding.

Quote
Further information in this report:
http://www.infinitysystems.com/home/technology/whitepapers/rabos.pdf

They don't show what happens to the ringing two inches away. They never do.

Versus my EQ Versus Bass Traps article which is very thorough.

--Ethan
I believe in Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method


Room treatment for listening music / measurements

Reply #48
My living room system is 5.1 surround with Mackie 624s, plus a killer SVS subwoofer with twin 12s - it's the size of a small refrigerator!

Ok, I can see now why you would have to resort to the myriad of acoustic band aids around the room. Those type of acoustic sources make them a requirement.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Room treatment for listening music / measurements

Reply #49
My living room system is 5.1 surround with Mackie 624s, plus a killer SVS subwoofer with twin 12s - it's the size of a small refrigerator!

Ok, I can see now why you would have to resort to the myriad of acoustic band aids around the room. Those type of acoustic sources make them a requirement.

cheers,

AJ



Acoustic band aids of some sort are almost always a requirement, if accurate reproduction is the goal.