How far can room treatments solve boomy bass?


My current room is too small for my Snell Es. I will get a bigger room in the future. In the meantime, haw far can tube traps and wall traps go to eliminate my boomy bass problem?

Thanks,
Jim
river251
Martykl, It is not only issue of loudness but also extended decay time. I also feel that additional pieces of electronics in the signal path don't improve clarity.

I agree with Ja2austintx assessment: fix the room, then decide.
For those problems that are caused by uneven modal distrubtion . . . why not fix them where they live, which is in the acoustics? Trying to EQ out the lumpiness is just fighting the symptom, not the cause.
To be clear:

1) Per Kijanki, EQ is not a "magic bullet" that fixes all problems. It is - IMO - a magic bullet that fixes one BIG problem.

Per Ja2) FR issues below 150hz or so have been IME virtually impossible to correct with traditional room treatments - including tuned Hemholtz devices.. Even if you fir out the walls to achieve ideal (or near ideal) relationships, you still have serious FR issues in most rooms with most speakers.

For instance, you will end up with destructive interference - unless your speakers are mounted on the wall or soffited into the walls. Quarter wave effects generally result in gross FR deformation (>10db at some point in every room that I've measured) below 150hz. Parametric EQ can bring that to virtually dead flat (depending on the system you're using). I find the delta instantly and dramatically audible. A simple visit to any HT retailer will allow you to A/B Audyssey. Form your own judgement, but I would be shocked if anyone missed the impact of the parametric EQ.

This certainly doesn't mean that everyone will like the sound of such a system. But, for the OP's question regarding a room too small for his loudspeakers, I don't know of any alternative to EQ. Even in a good sounding, fully treated room, I've yet to find a passive room treatment that is effective much below 100hz where these effects are so clearly audible.

I'd agree that traditional passive treatments are useful for many problems (particularly as Kijanki noted, issues related to the reverberant field - slap echo, etc.). That is why my listening room is heavily treated. However, I still use Audyssey. If you wanna fix the bass, there ain't nothin' like parametric EQ.

IMO.
YMMV (but I kinda doubt it.)

Marty
Don't you agree that proper acoustic treatment reduces the amount of EQ required to bring the response into "flat" (or "desired") response?

Also, can you elaborate on the specific quarter-wave effect you are seeing in rooms? Are you talking woofer-to-floor distance, woofer-to-front-wall, etc.?
Martykl, Yes taming low bass might be difficult but it is doable. My panels won't work well below 125Hz, according to datasheet, but 4" panel would. I hope that putting 2" panels on opposite walls will increase damping at low frequencies. I will know more after my panels are up.

EQ is not a magic bullet because it does nothing to long decay of boomy bass. That's perhaps why they spend fortune in recording studios and concert halls on acoustic treatments before playing with equalizer.

I would try speaker positioning, try different electronics and cables, apply acoustic treatments and then EQ. Boomy bass in my room got better with different cables to be further improved with class D amp to finally become more even with power conditioner. All this before room treatments.