I need help with my room

I hope Nate doesn't mind me posting this, I don't want to 'steal his thunder' but there are some points that need to be added to help understand the measurements that we took in his room.
Firstly, I think it takes a brave person to look at a frequency respones curve and try to correlate that to how a system might actually sound. I'm barely familier with Nate's system but it sounds like one of the most 'together' and neutral systems I've ever heard. So to look at the graphs and assume specific sonic weaknesses requires a degree of courage and knowledge that I don't have.
A bit more about how we took the measurements:
I don't have actual distances from the listening chair to the speakers, distance between speakers etc, but Nate has the system setup for what I would describe as fairly 'nearfield' perhaps 8' or so from the speaker line to the chair....so as pointed out above, room/speaker interactions become a little less significant.
Also, the room to my ear is very 'dead' sounding with a good amount of diffraction and absorbtion, which I believe accounts for much of the neutrality. Later in the measurement process, Nate removed some of his acoustic treatments, and I felt that was a negative move and that the stage sounded at little more confined and that the tonal balance edged a little away from neutral and more toward bright. Anyway, I'll leave the rest of the room setup description to Nate, since that's his baby not mine.

We used the Tact RCS 2.0 for measurements, and used it in fully digital mode, that is without the need for using it's analog inputs and/or outputs.
Tact recommend setting up the unit to take 20 impulse measurements per channel, more if ambient noise is an issue. I set the unit up to take 35 measurements per channel, and we took several different sets of measurements from the same position, which I later overlayed to verify consistency.
I should have exhibited more foresight whilst taking the measurements however, by having Nate seated in the listening chair, or had cushions or something there to simulate the presence of a person. In larger spaces, these subtle details may not be significant, but it may have made an impact in Nate's room, I'm not sure.....
If you look at the overlay graph showing room treatments in place, versus room treatments removed, there are clearly some significant measured differences. Given that Nates room treatments were not physically large in terms of reflective/absorptive surface area, and 'volume', it could stand to reason that not having a person in the listening chair during the measurement stage could have 'fudged' the results to some degree.
I agree with Sean that Nate is a brave man, hanging his gonads out for all to kick. However, this approach might be missing one fundamental factor, and that is: 'what is it about the sound that I (Nate) am trying to change or improve?'

When I bought the Tact for use in my own system, I had some very specific goals - reduce some treble glare, add a little mid-bass warmth, extend the bass a little, cure some bass 'suck-out' problems at the listening seat.
Nates system, to my ear, doesn't have any of these issues, and doesn't really have anything that I can detect that is the result of poor speaker/room interaction. I think a clearer objective is needed to derive anything valuable from this experience....or, and this is a question not a statement - 'is it acceptable to approach this exercise like experimenting with new cables, for example - I don't really have anything to achieve specifically, I'm just look for all-round 'better'?

I agree with your post Rooze. That is, enjoying one's system and knowing that it is as neutral as possible are two different things. That's why i said that i could understand if Nate or anyone else in a similar situation "quit while they were ahead". That is, stopped working and spending while they were still happy and not quite as broke.

It all boils down to personal preferences, perspectives and goals. Having said that, i think that doing something like this and then seeing the results is VERY frustrating, dis-heartening and will tend to eat at most folks from the inside out. It's a tough call as to what to do and how to go about doing it. That's why i applauded Nate's willingness to bare his soul in such a public manner and his willingness to ask for help.

Other than that, i agree that he needs to be more specific about what it is he wants to achieve i.e. more neutral in-room response, particular changes to tonal balance, etc... If he's happy with the system but not happy with how it measures, and he pursues the correction of the latter, the system may measure flatter. The question is, will he still enjoy the presentation of the system as much as he does now???

Given that most people think that their system is much "better" or "more accurate" than they think it is, they really don't know what they are getting into when they start looking at the testing of their system in this manner. This type of situation is typically a MAJOR can of worms that most folks are afraid to open. I don't blame them either as it gets very complex.

By the way, while you guys were doing all of this testing, did you use the TACT to as a correction device at all? If so, I have to wonder if Nate preferred the system in stock vs corrected form? I'm sure it sounded VERY different. Depending on which he preferred, that might give him a better idea of whether or not he should "mess" with his system or not. Sean
>

Sean, i was worried about getting Nate onto the measurement bandwagon and leading him on a downward spiral - but I made him do it anyway!!!(kidding).

I think if things are maintained in a certain context then there will be no permanent damage done. For example, setting a reasonable goal to ameliorate some of the obviously extended peaks and troughs, without striving for complete and utter perfection (the unattainable), is the safest way to approach this. The problem is that once the seed of doubt is planted, it tends to grow and get in the way of what we are ultimately trying to achieve - as you say, opening the proverbial can of worms.
It's over to Nate, but I think my approach right now would be to restore the listening room to its former state, with treatments in place, then to acquire a measurement tool that would allow him to see the result of each small change that he implements. Then slowly, perhaps over a period of a year or more, make subtle step changes, controlled and measured, to move him more towards a linear response, at the same time, allowing his ears to be the ultimate arbitrator between measurement and enjoyment.

Alternatively, given that Nate probably has more 'data' than most, perhaps take advantage of the Rives service, and have a professional assessment undertaken?
Rooze

PS...we didn't have time to try the Tact extensively in correction mode - we switched in a couple of stock correction curves but didn't spend any time trying to massage them into usable curves. My limited experience with the Tact is that it takes days, even weeks to get a good sounding response curve...and sometimes even then the trade-offs outweigh the advantages.

It is easy to forget how little information I included with my posts. I figure since I know what I did, that you must too!

The measurements were taken many times. I think it was a total near seven. The microphone like type thing was placed on the back of the listening chair within inches of where my own ears would be located while listening. The speakers are about three feet out from the back wall and on the left side about two feet out from the side wall. On the right side this is not possible since there is a door on the side wall, and a little farther out into the room is a staircase going up. No room is perfect and mine is as imperfect as the best of them.

The measurements were taken with all room treatments in place, with the speaker placement adjusted, and then again with some, and then all treatments removed.

I should probably mention that I had Rooze’s Cary V12 monoblocks driving my speakers rather than my Krell FPB 200. I’m not sure how much difference that will make as far as measurements are concerned.

Sean, you need to keep in mind that there is a fine line between bravery and stupidity. Be careful not to give me too much credit. Carl is correct when he describes the listening room as a near nearfield. The speakers are about eight feet apart (I’m not home now, so I can’t give exact dimensions) and the listening chair forms a triangle with the two speakers with the chair, of course at the apex of the triangle.

I realize that most peoples systems don’t sound as good as they think it does. I was concerned about the accuracy of my system, hence the attempt at quantifying it. No audiophile worth his/her salt would say that they have wild frequency swings, or phases issues, and not feel the urge to hang their head, or at least, their salesman.

I probably have not taken enough measurements, but I’m wondering if I can do anything with the amount of information I have at the moment.

I admit that it is difficult to determine whether the frequency issues are speaker, room, or speaker and room interactions. Does it really matter what the source of the flaws is though? If I were willing to replace my speakers, or my room, neither of which is an option, then that would be more relevant, but I’m not in a position to do either, so I need to fix the interaction as much as possible.

Onhwy61, I have asked myself the question: how important is a flat frequency response at the listening chair. I just want to assure myself that I am getting a reasonable facsimile.

We did use the TACT in correction mode, and actually I preferred the sound without it, but I will readily admit that just because I like something, or even worse, am used to a certain sound doesn’t make it right. My goal in ‘opening this can of worms’ was to get a little better sound from my system as opposed to just having it sound like I want it to sound.

I don’t know if this makes any or much sense to anyone else, but that’s where I am.