Does the first reflection point actually matter??

It is easy to absorb frequencies down to about 250 Hz. If one does not get overly aggressive with the treatment the spectral balance of the sound will not shift much. For those of us with full spectrum room control it does not matter as any shift can be easily corrected. 

This is a great thread,

may I suggest that moving speakers into a near-field listening position, i.e. far away from the walls or using omnidirectional speakers is a better way to address the issue than selectively cutting out some reflections and parts of the frequency spectrum. If needed, bass traps in the corners of the room are obviously useful.

There really is no issue in my mind to be fixed. 

It's more of a theoretical discussion. 

Maybe another way to word it is this:

You can't do much with room acoustics until you reach a critical mass. 4 2' x 4' panels in a modest living room are probably not going to do anything by themselves no matter how well placed.

I saw a interesting video about carpet and first reflection floor points.

Here is a myth to bust!

The carpet that we can see as a thin sound absorber do NOTHING to the first reflection point on the floor.

Instead what the carpet do is that it absorb only/mostly the high frequencies instead from 2nd and higher order of reflection.

Something to keep in mind. Look at the graph in the video:
https://youtu.be/GpDHo1jNhss

This example with thin carpet shows that we should always go for the thickest absorbers that we can get.

may I suggest that moving speakers into a near-field listening position,

To no avail.... People dont realize that nearfield listening cannot canceal the room acoustic at all... I know that firsthand, i listen to the 2 positions and i had implemented not only passive but also active room controls...

The impression that listening nearfield gives you some freedom from the room acoustic is only an illusion born with a comparison between the 2 positions before any working methods of controls were incrementally put in place....Without any changes in acoustic of the room, nearfield ans regular position of listening for sure are different but they are greatly affected by the presence or absence of room controls and treatment anyway....

You can’t do much with room acoustics until you reach a critical mass.

My experience concur with that... Optimal results cannot be gained without this critical mass of active controls and passive treatment...An equilibrium between absorbing, reflecting and diffusing for me....And more than that also the use of active devices....


In acoustic of "small room" only your EARS can do the job, because of the geometry and topology of the room and because last and not least of the acoustical variable content of the room furnitures and objects.......

Timbre instrument perception and imaging perception are phenomenon for living ears only.....They dont comes at their OPTIMAL actualization only by virtue of a correcting apparatus of any kind....

Ears are king in the kingdom of sound.... Especially " biased" one because it is these biased ears of yours that will listen your music in this room of yours....There is no 2 identical pair of ears by the way....And the complex structure and dynamical properties of your ears and of the room are ONE indissocciable phenomenon in the music experience....

:)