Acoustic treatment question: do you agree with Dennis Foley that $46k to $65k is required?

In all fairness to Dennis Foley, he clearly makes the point that the most expensive part of room treatment is bass management. He clearly states that managing fundamental frequencies, in the 30 , 40, 50 cycle range is the name of the game or the higher multiple harmonics will not be correct. I would bet, that most readers of this discussion have not addressed their own issues in this range and to do so, will realize that expenditures can be substantial. 

I had a free phone consultation with him a couple months back.  He is abrasive to say the least.  Turned me off so much I couldn’t wait to get off the phone. 

@eganmedia I very much appreciate hearing from someone with expertise. Thank you for taking the time to comment.

To sweat microscopic details in a room fundamentally poor at reproducing a flat frequency response is sort of a hallmark of the audiophile community and is the reason folks poke fun at it.

This makes a lot of sense to me, and I have seen many on this forum make this point and indicate where a genuine difference could be made. So, not all here are poke-worthy.

In the context of your other sensible remarks, all I can say is this: I do not have a great room, but it’s not terrible. (That’s ok. I’m a college teacher, not a recording/ mix engineer. When it comes to teaching and research tools, I spend what’s necessary on travel, books, journals, bibliography tools, etc. Audio is a hobby so I do not need to spend as if it was my profession. I have no desire to put )

By the use of REW and a lot (lot!) of measuring and listening, I’ve shifted everything in the room to cooperate to be much, much better. At this point, there are a couple of options -- either (a) I realize that my room can never be great, and I do nothing more to it, or (b) I seek out treatment proportionate to my room’s (limited) potential which could make a noticeable impact. I’ve embarked on (b) because other hobbyists have indicated they made improvements which mattered. So finding a company that can address that more limited ambition is my goal and I appreciate your help in helping me refine my options a bit more. 

I spoke with him once about my room - he basically said the dimensions and layout are both unfixable ("Don’t bother trying to fix it, buy a different house.").

I am not an acoustician...

BUT

if i read this advise coming from an acoustician, i doubt a lot... "This is a Bad room sell your house" or next customer please!

That gives me doubts....

No room is unfixable, some room are very difficult...Yes...

My room is a 2 litlle rectangulars in a square central puzzle piece geometry, 13x 13 feet x 8 1/2 height , one of the speaker is almost glued in a corner the other not... 2 windows, one door...

I succeed to compensate completely for the distortion of the soundstage caused by the very bad location of the speakers...

The bass for a 7 inches drivers touch my stomach with punch....The highs are very good in the 2 positions of listenings...Timbre distinction is very good and vibraphone notes decay with changing colors hues is an experience to live....

All my gear are on my desk between the speakers, i succeed to relatively isolate them...

My imaging is stellar in 2 listening positions, and the timbre natural in the 2 positions...

The reason why some professional say this about "impossible" room to fix is simple: they work with standard regular methods, mostly some specific materials, applicable in most case to some degree and not in all case... They want to spare them the big trouble because it is one trouble... You cannot fix a difficult room with simple passive materials means only , even many simple one....it is not like reconstructing the room, it is a work piece by piece in the frequencies range with many devices to compensate.... It is not an easy job... More hours less money....

I spend 2 years with incremental experiments and UNORTHODOX devices to fix it, ( 3 different sets of Helmholtz resonators among others means ) i succeed, using my ears and remember that i optimized my room for 2 POSITIONS of listening not one.... I am in love with the 2 position, one is more detailed, the other more alive, but the 2 are almost perfect.... Impossible to chose....

I am not an acoustician at all.... I am ignorant in acoustic but less than some.... I just discovered that my ears are better acoustician than me....

I know nothing, i just try one step at a time.... I learn little but little may be big, compared to nothing....Is my room perfect? Hell no... Is it a marvel to listen music here? Hell yess... A relative optimization is not perfection but you can live with it without looking back...

i just post that, because some may think to sell their house after this advice by a pro....Or enter into despair and resignation...

My best to all...






By the way thinking like some that "near listening" spare for them the necessity of an acoustical treatment in a small room, is true to a very small degree only....In a small room the reflected waves comes very swiftly into play.... I know then very well by experience that acoustical treatment will change the near listening timbre perception and imaging and soundstage....
Except for rare case of some miraculously well set room already good acoustically this is the rule for me....



The only question is NOT to know if the room is good or too difficult to use..... The only difficult question is :

Do you have a room ONLY for audio purpose? Anything is acoustically workable...At peanuts cost and i proved it for myself... Is it not good news? The ONLY COSTLY thing will be discount your ears advice from the work to be done... Acoustic in its "basic" form is only learning to hear....Read also the basic about waves....

Then saying to someone "too bad room", next customer, speak less about acoustic science than about simplification of work by business methods....Business management it is called not acoustic at all....

Without a purpose-built listening room it's unlikely most homes have a floating room with very good ratios and built with multi-layer, heavy, damped construction. My current listening room has those qualities and it still required 32 tuned Helmholtz resonators in the corners, broadband membrane traps against the front wall, RPG Diffractal arrays across most of the back wall, and 4" 703 clouds over about 80% of the ceiling and 70% of the side walls. That treatment takes into consideration that the low frequency modes will already be well spaced and the treatment only enhances what is already a very even room.

What is required in a recording studio though is different from a listening room.  A listening room has the benefit of fixed speaker position and listener.

In a listening room as well, and as it suits personal preference, some reflections are a good thing to enhance sense of space that is often preferred over what can be a flat presentation from the recording. To that end, I would expect most people would not find ideal to have 70% of their side walls covered with thick absorption and probably not 80% of the ceiling, though you have not described the floors.  Covering that much ceiling but leaving the floors "live" can create an unnatural presentation depending on the speakers.

Your implementation of the 32 Helmholtz resonators really speaks to the alternate implementation of a bass array for controlling the lowest nodes. For most users and their rooms, when cost, looks, space, etc. is taken into account, a bass array will be a better, more cost effective implementation.