Acoustics and reverberation time


Hi everyone,

We often talk about room modes or first reflections but few talk about a major reason for treating a room: reverb time.

Reverberation time is the amount of time an audio signal stays active in a room. An anechoic test chamber has no reverb, since only the source signal can be heard. We often measure reverb time with the measure RT60. That is, how long in time until the signal has decayed by 60 dB. We divide this into multiple bands so we can evaluate room treatment in mid-bass, mid, treble separately, but there is also the question of how smoothly it decays. Signals should decay randomly but smoothly. Peaks indicate an echo. Multiple peaks a slap echo. Too little reverb and you end up with a very dry sounding room, with no ambience.

What does this affect? It is like a TV or computer monitor’s pixel. Imagine the screen having a memory of all the previous pixels, like the screen starts to turn grey or blue based on what you saw a few frames ago. So, it blurs the signal. It also colors the signal. A room with excess mid/treble reverb can make every speaker seem like it lacks bass when the reality is that there is too much mid/treble in the room. A side effect of this is that speakers sound harsh when you turn up the volume. Of course, this is subjective, as you can overload a speaker, but when you are using relatively little power and the sound quality changes, it is often excess treble reverb time.

One curious experiment which will make you a believer in reverb time is to treat bare wooden floors between or behind the speakers with pillows or blankets. Why does this help the mid/treble? Well, reverb time. :)

Perhaps now we can imagine why diffusion works. Instead of being pure absorbers, they scatter the sound. They help maintain the reverb time but prevent these coherent, regular reflections. So when we are looking at room treatment we are attempting a combination of many traits. Controlling early reflections, and maintaining a diffuse, rapidly decaying (but not too rapidly) sound field, in addition to managing room modes.

At the gross level, your room acoustics are tone controls. You are playing with the mid/treble balance, and at the finest levels they are helping to localize sounds and provide an enjoyable playing field for your music.

This should also help you understand somewhat why equalizer solutions, including Digital Signal Processing (DSP) based like automatic room correction or DIRAC, etc. can only work up to a point, and why having good room treatment widens the sweet spot, and makes these tools work over a broader physical area.
erik_squires
@mahgistar I have enjoyed studying the pictures of your ’embeddings’
Thanks for your kind words....By the way my room is actually crazier than what you can see, it is difficult to gives an image clear of all my new devices with hundred of feet of cables.... 😁
But my only concern all along this incremental set of experiments was sound not esthetic... And i am not the more skillful here probably the less skillful of all....But one of the more creative it seems... 😎


For sure my embeddings controls are cheap, homemade and non esthetically compatible with a wife, especially a good one....

But i was not planning all that in the beginnings, this was the results of 2 years of non planified listening experiments and no money to afford my audio dream with the regular costly known solutions... I succeed to afford my dream at the cost of esthetic for sure... But i also introduce myself practically to acoustic embedding ( mechanical and electrical one also) WITHOUT very straight a priori rules or computers except the very basic rules for sure....


I often wonder how many audiophiles are on a gear exchange merry-go-round until they get good room acoustics? It is as if the need to spend money, experiment with cables, etc. just stops.
Most people dont have a clue about audio embeddings.... And they put their faith in external authorities or in costly engineering but not in their own ears experimental habilities...

I am not a "bat" by the way, but i know how to listen, for me audio and music are simply the educated history of my own listening habit....

And for those who will critic the bias and defective hearing status of old men of my age, i will answer this: audio is not about perceiving some higher range of Hertz frequencies for the sake of them, but about listening to relatively good natural timbre instruments renditions to the room first and the speakers attached to it... No need to be a bat....Only to be attentive listeners, even if we are half-deaf dude, anyway, it is our room and it will be our sound pleasure....

Merry Christmas and good health to all audio friends....
A lot of that stuff no doubt looks pretty batty to most folks. Something I know a little bit about seeing as there's more than a few things in my system that look pretty dubious too.  

One of them that we both have are the Schumann generators. Heard about them before, always seemed crazy, but I know mahgister is for real because he is right on about the Schumann generators. They removed a layer of fog and grain revealing all kinds of fine detail that comes through in a much more natural effortless way now. Pretty amazing for a cheap little $10 circuit board. More is better but even now with 8 we are not talking much money, certainly not for what they do.   

Old school panels and traps are fine for what they are, but no amount of them comes anywhere close to what can be done with some of these hard to understand room tweaks. Synergistic Research HFT are tiny little deals that nobody except maybe Ted Denney understands what they do or how they work, but they do indeed work, and crazy good. But if we don't have the foggiest what is going on with them, but they do in fact work, then what right do we have to dismiss any of this other stuff? None. Not that I can see.   

There doesn't even seem to be any evidence that the traditional acoustic approach is any better. In fact it seems to me that ultimately when it comes down to it the very best results are always obtained not by meters and professional consultants but by trial and error and by ear. For sure the best room I have ever heard is Mike Lavigne's and yes he used everything money can buy but ultimately it was his passion for music, his ears, and his keen eye for detail that got him where he is today.  

It didn't roll out from some UPS truck after a phone call to GIK. He worked at it, and hard, and for years. Just like mahgister is doing.  

Some of the best systems I have heard looked like a mad scientist experiment. Mahgister, not a knock, and you won't believe this, but you do not even hold first place! There was a show one time with this tube amp looked like Tesla's lab exploded and even had a big DANGER! HIGH VOLTAGE! sign on it. People kept their distance- including even me! 

But yours mahgister, boy would I like to hear what you got going there.
Tweaks aside you can get great sound and a great RT60 with plants, natural furnishings, a mix of natural diffraction and of course absorption ( which you can hide behind artwork, etc... )
see my system pictures of Casa Pacifica which achieves almost textbook perfect control room targets for RT60
and has plenty of WAF.
many of your cherished recordings probably exist because somebody cared enough to study acoustics and more...

Studio Six running on an iPad provides a good RT60 tool.
If i dare to give an image of my actual ceiling room all people here will write a petition to include me on a free psychiatric treatment list....

Then trust me i look like a nut in my room...

I dont give a dam, my room was always set to be the tool for my audio dream...

For sure after all these 2 years my hundred of experiments contribute all with inequal value to my actual S.Q. Nobody was there next to me to give me a clue about what to do, except buy this or that, in general with the money i never have...

Sometimes one of my device were disconnected by accident, or by me for an experiment, and the result were the audible clues and values of each one of my experiments...

Classical audio treatment for example cannot replace many devices effects, like Helmholtz resonators, or non-Helmholtz resonators, or stones or crystals installation, or Schumann generators grid, or my golden plate grid etc....How in the world a connected by cable array of resonators can have an audible effect ? Classical acoustic dont deal with nut people like me....But anyway i keep what is working....

For example my last discovery was that ears dont like the empty convex corner of my audio room, but prefer a polyhedral flowing shape.... Is there a classical acoustical book that recommend that? perhaps but it is not orthodox ordinary practice in usual audio thread....

Also i dont have a mathematically measuring rod to objectively evaluate the final value of each of the device i tried or create.... It is my ears who was the judge of which will be the next road to take and which one to cancel....My goal was timbre instrument natural rendition with holographic imaging....i succeed and that was my goal....

Merry Christmas to you millercarbon and to all....





Tweaks aside you can get great sound and a great RT60 with plants, natural furnishings, a mix of natural diffraction and of course absorption ( which you can hide behind artwork, etc... )
see my system pictures of Casa Pacifica which achieves almost textbook perfect control room targets for RT60
and has plenty of WAF.
many of your cherished recordings probably exist because somebody cared enough to study acoustics and more...
By the way i am sure that you are right Tomic....It is better for WAF also for sure....I dont ask for anyone to take exactly the same road i did.... I only ask people to have faith also in their own creative power....

Merry Christmas to you Tomic....




There doesn't even seem to be any evidence that the traditional acoustic approach is any better.

When the flat earth society takes over your discussion, it's time to pack it in.