Modernists Unite, or: saying no to room treatment


My apologies if this is posted in the wrong section.

So far as I can discern here, modern architectural design and sound quality are almost completely at odds with each other. There are many nice systems posted that are in (to my eyes) gorgeous, clean, modern/contemporary homes, and generally speaking, the comments eventually get around to refuting the possibility that the sound in these rooms can really be very good.

Perhaps Digital Room Correction offers some hope, but I don't see it deployed overmuch.

So is it true? Are all the modernists suffering with 80th percentile sound?

It's not about WAF. I don't want to live in a rug-covered padded cell either. ;-)
soundgasm
Audiokinesis
My opinion is that a speaker should sound just fine in a fairly reverberant - just like the acoustic instruments it's supposed to be reproducing.
I firmly disagree. The recording of the performance includes the acoustics of the performance site, as it should. Superimposing the reverberation of the listening room is, by definition, a distortion.

Kal
What would be the 2-3 things that could and ought to be done to "treat" a room that most anyone can get right without really what they are doing?
Elizabeth,

I wish I still had photos of my old HT room and listening room. These were the result of a "gut" renovation, were starkly modern in design, and thoroughly treated behind the "wall" surfaces. Wall is "", because I used cloth on the upper half and light wood wainscoating on the lower half, with minamilist stainless steel moldings above, below, and in-between. All treatments were hidden behind the cloth.

Looked great, sounded great.

Now my HT room (a converted garage) is a (much cheaper, ah the economy) variant on the same idea as my old one. Cloth upper walls. In my listening room, I deploy colortful treatments on the conventional wall surfaces and use DRC on subwoofers. The HT room looks very nice and the listening room, well....probably not what you're talking about here.

The real point is that careful design (and yes a small to large pile of cash) can get you both form and function.

Marty

PS WAF was not an issue for me either - the listening rooms are/were my space. The HT rooms were driven by my desire to enjoy the environment visually as well as functionally.
04-12-10: Drtmth58
"Truth be told, both Duke and Elizabeth are among the two very most intelligent participants in this forum. They both know what they are talking about, and studiously avoid most of the meaningless jargon that is all too pervasive among audio hobbyists."

Hi Drtmth58, I am sure that I am just as intelligent as Duke and Elizebeth, but I sure do have a different opinion on this subject.

Just do the opposite of what they say, and you will be OK.
(This is where I am supposed to attach one of those smile man avatars.)

Bob
PHP143
Well, I don't think we're answering the right question. In general I agree with Kal because I favor musical REcreation (hearing whats on the disc) over musical creation ( which would occur if the listening room is altering the sound in any meaningful way). I favor "accurate". However, digital correction presents its own problems and over treating rooms does too. A flat response in and of itself may not sound good to any particular listener. The other thing to think about is that some people prefer a colored sound which pleases them. This could come from colored equipment or from the room itself which might always present the music in a certain way which the owner finds pleasing. This leads me to say : If YOU don't like the sound your getting in your room you can improve it with treatment. If you seek "the truth" you can treat the room. If you like the way your particular room makes the music sound who am I to argue with you. Enjoy it and don't worry about it. - Jim