>>The contention that just because a room has treatments that it interferes with a living space is erroneous as well. I have architecturally interesting diffusers and ceiling tiles (vs. hidden) and host a variety of events during the year. I did art panels that turned out great in the back of the room with top of the line photography. I would have my reflections panels hidden as well if it were a more permanent installation- but as a result I have 3 grey panels that blend in with my wall paint color, but are somewhat obtrusive. I can take them down for any party if I'm that particular. And yes, I have a coffee table.<<
Every room that has treatments is compromised for someone who is visually driven about their environment and has specific aesthetic biases. There are no truly "invisible" room treatments. The debate isn't about whether acoustic treatment to a room can or will improve sonics. The issue is entirely one of whether the intrusiveness is acceptable to the owner, in the full balance of factors that affect livability. This is subjective. I don't resist the idea that my room can be mitigated. Doing so is just too intrusive to the aesthetic environment I want to maintain. To an art collector, no panel with art applied to it is going to be acceptable in the same space. Put another way, treating my first reflection point will either force me to move a prominent piece of art or visually crowd it. If you could put one treatment at that spot in my room and magically transform it into the acoustics of Symphony Hall, that's still not going to be allowed. On the other hand, dedicated listening rooms have less social considerations, and you listen in low light anyway. They aren't general purpose rooms, so people can knock themselves out. I just won't ever put a hifi in a dedicated listening room, and most other people won't either. Even Keith hasn't(which I think is good).
>>Even 213Cobra has never tried an external piece of room treatment in his room, so until then all of his opinion is really just pure speculation. <<
This is not quite correct. I have in other dwellings I've lived in, assented to friends in the business bringing room treatments in for demo. The differences were clear. So were the visual compromises. I know what room treatment will do; I just don't want to accept the price to my environment. Simple as that. I'm into hifi for music, not into music for hifi.
>>when room/speaker makes by far makes the biggest difference in sound.<<
I think this is not fully correct. The room/speaker interface is highly influential to a class of differences in a system's sound. But gear is equally influential in other ways that room improvemtns can't influence very well. There is a lot that doesn't overlap. Point is, one can improve room or system independently, and achieve big advances in quality of music reproduction. It's not mandatory to do both, and improving gear is easier to manage, typically. The idea that getting the room right makes everything else right has clear limits. In that "perfect" room in Arlington, MA, I could make any gear sound good, but not make anything satisfying. It was very easy to get far more satisfying sound from better gear in an inferior room. A room doesn't correct for crossover artifacts, crossover notch distortion in push-pull amps, honky horns or hashy DACs, for instance.
>>They think I'm a whack job right when they come in the door!<<
Yup. This is what we really ought to be concerned about. The mere existence of a hifi with 12"x12"x49" speakers in your living room has become notable for being rare and therefore strange, compared to 40 years ago. When it's turned on, they begin to understand, but it takes a LOT of exposure to it for the ono-initiated to begin to relate to high end hifi as something they could own for themselves. This is among the reasons I maintain the no-cave policy in my household, which leads to other biases against the visual pollution of room treatments.
Phil
