And now for the far more problematic Bedroom System...
 

Getting a shared living space to sound "right" can be a monumental challenge, given SOAF considerations such as esthetics priorities; functional issues such as room shape and layout, foot-traffic patterns, and virtually inflexible furniture placement dictated by available space; and the overarching imperative of maintaining domestic peace and tranquility.

As some of you know from a thread begun in this forum in June 2014 (my, how time flies), I'd coped with these issues in bringing the main-audio-system space to heel with the indispensable advice and assistance of GIK's Glenn Kuras, Bryan Pape, and Christina Stone. Well, I'm now back at it again, this time working to tame the even more problematic bedroom-system listening space.

Normally, the bedroom, with its complement of eBay-acquired used or customer-returned components and a QVC special-sale i7 Windows 10 laptop as the program source, would constitute a "secondary" listening venue. But there's only one TV in the house, and that's parked in the main system's space. If one of us wants to watch "The Bachelor" (emphatically not me) and the other wants to listen to music, the bedroom becomes the primary listening area out of necessity. Its size and layout render it an even bigger acoustics challenge than the main-system space. And there's no "listening chair" in there. Depending on how you want to characterize it, I park, sprawl, or lay out on the bed with my ears positioned at about mid-bed, so I'm out close to four feet from the rear wall when I listen.

Having already treated the main system, I had the advantage of "borrowing" GIK panels from what my wife prefers to call "the living/dining room" to test placement configurations in the bedroom. What I finally came up after exhaustive listening to a wide variety of hi-rez downloads and CD rips of classical, jazz, film scores, vocal standards, choral, and opera is shown here.

The front wall--a pair of full-range 244's and a 12"x48" Monster. The asymmetrical placement of the panels reflects the fact that positioning at the right front corner is impractical because a door opens into it:

http://jimtranr.com/BR_front_022317_1_35.jpg

The back wall--two scatter-plate 244's and a 12"x48" Monster:

http://jimtranr.com/BR_back_022817_2_40.jpg

A full-range 244 at the right first-reflection point (in front of LP storage):

http://jimtranr.com/BR_rt1st_1_35.jpg

A full-range 244 at the left first-reflection point:

http://jimtranr.com/BR_LfRf_2_35.jpg

Trap placement diagram:

http://jimtranr.com/Secondary_system_diagram.jpg

Trapping the room this way has effected significant improvements in instrumental, vocal, and ensemble articulation, bass tautness, imaging, and soundstage depth. But since significant speaker boundary interference response issues remain due to the unavoidable proximity of necessary furniture (you can see from the diagram that I don't have much room to work with), I'll attempt to amerliorate SBIR issues by (1) building new sand-filled speaker stands to raise the Paradigm Studio 20's five inches and (2) building a new, lower-profile audio equiment rack, a "flexy" rod-and-shelf arrangement that presents less reflective surface to the left speaker.

Even with its limitations, the current configuration enables a more open, better-defined sonic presentation than heard in the room's formerly untreated state. And my wife has indicated that she'll find a new location for the jewel cases that presently occupy the top of the dresser (with their faces covered by some packing foam I found in a desperate search for something that might reduce the reflective mass that speaker output "sees" while I tested the setup). Once she heard the improvement--and that took all of about three minutes--she said she didn't mind that I'd moved some wall prints to accommodate the traps.

Jim, it looks great, congrats. Now that the jewelry case issue is resolved, I wonder if you would mind negotiating peace in the Middle East? ;)

:-) Thanks, Randy. But don't overpraise my negotiating skills (such as they are). Having heard me rattle on before about the baneful effects of direct reflections, my wife volunteered to move the cases without any prompting from me. And--also without any prompting--she said it was all right if I moved the 2'x3' framed poster (a Georgia O'Keeffe rendering done for the 1982 Santa Fe Chamber Music Festival) that hung at front wall center to another room if it posed a problem (it did, and it's now hanging in the home office).

An anecdote that will put this all in perspective: When we started going together 36 years ago, she allowed me to drill holes through her living-room carpet and hardwood floor so I could run Fulton Gold speaker cable unseen from my DIY time-aligned KEF/Audax hybrids to the entry closet she vacated to permit me to install my audio equipment rack there. If you're at all familiar with Fulton Gold (I swear it's robust enough to hold up the Golden Gate Bridge at rush hour), you know that was a major "give" on her part, and I knew then and there that she was a keeper.

This time around, as she settled into the listening position for the first test of the "new bedroom decor"--and before I put any music on--she said after a few moments of conversation, "It's quieter in here." Yep. And after listening for a couple of minutes to a 16/44 rip of the Turtle Creek Chorale singing Lenny Bernstein's "Make Our Garden Grow" on Reference Recordings' "Testament", she noted the vocal articulation and ensemble layering discernible with the panels installed. "As soon as I can find a place for them, I'll take the jewel cases out."

Being able to use panels from the main system to test the bedroom configuration proved to be indispensable in at least one respect. It allowed me to compare the use of full-range 244's with their scatter-plated cousins at the rear corners. I wasn't sure I'd hear much, if any, difference, given my listening location about only four feet in front of the plane of the scatter plates. I tried the full-ranges first, then listened to the scatter-plate iterations, and then went through the whole this-first-then-that routine again with a variety of ripped and downloaded program material. With the full-range 244's it sounded good. With the scatter plates, the presentations sounded a touch more open and--where such information was embedded in the recording--"airier". There was nothing subjectively exaggerated about the latter characteristic, and, overall, the scatter-plate-configured presentation sounded a tad more "real". So that's why the scatter-plate 244's still hang there.

I've ordered the replacement traps in "cash-flow" stages. A new pair of full-range 244's constitute the first-reflection-point panels seen in the photos. A scatter-plated pair is due in this coming Thursday, and the final pair of full-range 244's should arrive a week from Monday. I'll follow up with the Monsters shortly thereafter. The sonic results render them more than well worth the investment.

Jim, let's just say that nothing (and I mean NOTHING) audio related is allowed out of the basement at my house. ;)

To be serious, congrats on dramatically improving the acoustics in your bedroom! Small rooms are a bear to control.

Randy, agreed on the "bear to control". And, empathizing with your "everything stays in the basement" situation, I did have to compromise on something beyond retaining the remaining prints in their existing wall positions. I floated a proposal for a 244 "cloud"...but that was an emphatic no-go. Didn't make an issue of it, as I'd already achieved more than what I'd thought possible.

One pair of the "replacement" full-range 244's is already in-house, with another pair and the scatter-plated panels on their way in separate FedEx shipments. I'll order the Monsters shortly after the 15th. After they've arrived and I've put the main-system setup back together, I'll build the new equipment rack and the taller speaker stands.

It never ends, does it.

Playing with second-reflection-point trapping
 

Note: In the course of receiving GIK traps to replace those "borrowed" from my main system for bedroom-system tests, I'm taking the opportunity to broaden trap coverage to test the extent, if any, to which additional traps affect perceived performance. What follows is an excerpt from an email sent this afternoon to some interested friends who've been following my "journey". As indicated, I'll supplement the test of scatter-plate 244's at the second reflection points with one using the full-range 244's due on my doorstep this coming Monday:

The pair of 24”W x 48”L GIK scatter-plate acoustic panels intended to replace those “stolen” from the main system arrived on schedule yesterday. As I indicated in an earlier email, I wouldn’t remove the “stolen” ones immediately from their rear-corner positions, but would place the new ones temporarily at the second-reflection point positions on the bedroom side walls to test their effect on the sonic presentation. The positioning looks like this and puts the new traps slightly ahead of the plane of my ears:

http://jimtranr.com/Secondary_audio_system_2nd_rp.jpg

I took the setup for a listening spin after closing the window curtains. Glass panes are notorious reflection generators and have the added liability of “sucking out” bass as they vibrate upon being struck by low-frequency sonic energy. (That’s why I don’t advise glass doors—or, for that matter, shelves--on equipment, record, or CD cabinets—they degrade sonic performance in so many ways.)

To begin the listening session I took the unusual step of using three YouTube music videos as the source. “Unusual” because YouTube audio is nowhere near reference quality. But in this instance I wanted to determine what, if any, impact the addition of second-reflection traps would have on three French horn solo performances suggested to me by a friend. Each was a live performance in what I would consider an average listening venue. And the French horn is both unique in its sonorities and an instrument that “energizes” the space around it in ways whose presence or absence is easily discernible with audio equipment of reasonable quality.

I tested twice for each selection—once with the new traps absent, and then with them installed at the second-reflection points. Considering the YouTube source, the French horn sounded pretty good without the new traps. But it was a whole new ball game for each selection with the new traps in place. For one thing, the performance venue “expanded”, most notably in its delineation of interior space. That was important, because the horn now had more perceived room to “breathe”. Breathe it did, filling the space with a palpably plangent presence you hear when you’re up close and personal with brass instruments. And on YouTube, no less.

I then moved on to my usual listening-evaluation suspects [all either CD rips or high-resolution downloads (24/96 to 24/192 PCM or DSD64 to DSD128)], most of them large-ensemble instrumental or choral works, using the same with-followed-by-without-the-new-traps scheme. A few are works I’ve mentioned here recently, including by Morton Gould, E.J. Moeran, Jerome Moross, and Gustav Mahler. Each traps-in-place audition blew me away with enough contrast between trap changes to rule out confirmation bias as an explanation of perceived differences.

I’d note here that even when the room was not trapped at all, I could discern depth to some degree in performances where the recording engineers got it “right”. (That’s in large part due to pulling the speakers out from the front wall as far as foot traffic into and out of the bedroom would allow. It’s too bad I can’t pull them out farther. And that ain’t going to happen.) Progressively trapping the room, starting with the front wall, then the back, and then the first-reflection points made the front wall behind the speakers “disappear” to an increasingly greater degree. And once I’d trapped the first-reflection points the layering of instrumental or vocal rows perceptible on the recorded soundstage was more than decent. But treating the second-reflection points presents a whole new ball game in rendering the performing instruments (including voice) as palpable entities, tonally and timbrally as well as “visually”. There’s more natural decay (and “roll through the floor”) of bass drum and tympani strikes (and with that, a greater sense of “real” low and mid-bass), more resonance to strings—low to high—and, yeah, an even more acute perception of triangle and celesta nuance that I thought had disappeared with excessive ear mileage.

Caution has to be applied in a situation like this. Even though they're "passive", are the new traps applying a sonic signature of their own to what I’m hearing in the same manner that source and amplifying electronics as well as speakers tend to “color” their output depending on how they’ve been designed and voiced? I don’t think so. With all the improvements I hear, the pinched acoustic of Philadelphia’s Academy of Music doesn’t mimic the broader ambience of Manhattan Center; nor does the latter ape the marvelous space that’s Amsterdam’s Concertgebouw. Each venue is more spacious and clearly defined, to be sure, with the new setup. But there’s no mistaking one for the other in what I’m hearing.

Nonetheless, I’m open to more testing. And I should get it beginning on Monday, when FedEx tracking says a “replacement” pair of full-range-absorber 244 traps (so-model-named because they’re two feet wide by four feet long by four inches deep insulation-wise) will show up on my doorstep. Before I do any “replacing”, I’ll swap them out with the new scatter-plated traps to see what difference removing that scattering/diffusing feature at the second-reflection point does.

The final iteration
 

The arrival of a pair of full-range 244's yesterday afternoon enabled me to assess how their use at the second-reflection point fared in terms of effect on the sonic presentation versus that of their scatter-plate-equipped cousins. After extensive listening comparisons last night that involved the shuttling of each pair in and out the bedroom, I concluded that although installing the scatter-plated pair at the formerly vacant reflection point had noticeably improved the overall sonic picture in several respects (as indicated in my last post), putting the full-range 244's at that position took every one of those improvements to a new level. Grammatical niceties aside, "even more better" might be the most appropriate way to characterize the difference.

The tests were made with the nearest edge of each second-reflection-point trap positioned about a foot ahead of the plane of my ears as I parked in a semi-scrunched sprawl near the bed's midpoint. These photos show them from approximately that perspective.

Left side:

http://jimtranr.com/BR_2nd_rf_left_4_40.jpg

Right side:

http://jimtranr.com/BR_2nd_rf_right_1_40.jpg

(Ignore the glossy-black Paradigm SE-1's on the carpet--they'll be moved out of the room.)

Overall trap placement is diagrammed here:

http://jimtranr.com/Secondary_audio_...2nd_rp_244.jpg

I was particularly impressed with the increase in: perceived dimensionality and spatial expansiveness of the soundstage; in the sonic palpability of instruments and voice; in tonal "liquidity" (e.g., in the French horn); in dynamic contrasts; and bass decay that enhanced foundational solidity.

Having said that, I'd make two points: First, what improvements I heard built on what I'd already thought good with the scatter-plates in place; and, second, none of the improvements put lipstick on a pig. I purposely played some recordings that I consider sub-par to see if the configuration change would doll them up. Nope. All the increased focus and perceived increased resolution did was simply put me further "into the mix"--and if it was a bad one, its flaws showed even more prominently. But the good stuff--that's something else entirely.

Yeah, well that's all well and good. But the really big question still hung out there. This is a shared space, after all, and while I could play to my heart's content while testing configurations, was this to be just a transient experience, one of those situations where you tread onto the rim of sonic Paradise for a couple of hours only to be tossed out just when the getting's good?

Cue "the conversation":

WIFE: I see we now have two of those things on each side.

[Uh-oh. "...those things." That doesn't sound like anything approaching acceptance, much less approval. But she has a point. The bedroom has morphed into Stonehenge.]

ME: Well, I'm just testing to see how it would sound with them in place. I can always move them ou--

WIFE: No, no. They're fine. And I'm glad you got them in grey. But I worry.

[A moment of stunned silence. I catch my breath.]

ME: Uh, about what?

WIFE: Those things on the back wall. Are you sure they're all right up there? I don't want them falling down on your head while you're listening.

ME: Uh, oh, nothing to worry about. They're hung securely. Two hooks each.

WIFE: That's good.

ME: [Deep, deeper, deepest sigh of relief.]

So we're good. And at the point where I won't inflict any more pics or diagrams on you. What this trapping configuration does is make listening in a space fraught with multiple asymmetries and an unhealthy dose of SBIR issues far more than just "decent" or "good". So much so that I'm almost tempted not to refer to it as the "secondary" system.

Chalk me up as a happy camper.

Very nice right up. Thank you for your diligence.

And now for the far more problematic Bedroom System...
 

Jim, very interesting. Seems like a real world example of less is more: by reducing room induced standing waves you are able to now hear the previously drowned out subtle bass clues that provide a sense of space and placement. That is a big win in a small room, which as I said before, is a bear to control. Congrats!

Thanks, Randy. Yes, those subtle bass cues are far more evident. As is so much else.

To tame the reflective mass that's the front of the dresser scrunched between the speakers, I hung towels from the top drawers last evening to cover the whole front surface. But my wife took one look and said, "Uh-uh."

I thought, "Well, there goes the ball game." Wrong. In the next instant she said, "I have an unused Afghan blanket downstairs that I have to throw in the wash. Would that work?"

Really tough being an audiophile in this house. :D

Thank you, vegaracer1. This project has been a fun ride, not least because the sonic results have exceeded expectations in this nest of multiple asymmetries and SBIR horrors. As noted earlier, being able to test various trap configurations with real-world product before having to commit to purchasing same has been indispensable, not only in determining what worked best in this particular space but also in obtaining spousal acceptance--and ultimately support--given freely because she was able to hear, and appreciate, the results right along with me.

As a postscript, I'd note that I went predominantly with 244s because--after developing a quick-and-dirty Excel spreadsheet that did the calculating for me--I determined that the room's length, width, and height produced room modes of 86, 103, and 147 Hz, all within the 244's spec'd effective capability.

Better pictures
 

These shots of the reflection-point traps put them in better perspective. The covers are standard grey, and the seeming color differences in the right-side 244s don't exist, but are instead artifacts of the light hitting them when I took the photos.

Left side...

http://jimtranr.com/Reflection_Point_left_traps_3.jpg

Right side...

http://jimtranr.com/Reflection_Point_right_traps_1.jpg

Having had a brainchild about a perhaps better solution to the dresser-front reflection problem than an Afghan blanket, I've emailed Bryan Pape and will let you know the outcome.

Next step, following an email exchange with a quick-responding Bryan Pape: Order a pair of 24"x24" 244s to hook over the dresser's top drawers, allowing them to be removed whenever we need access to the dresser's contents and re-installed for listening sessions.

I'd initially asked Bryan if 242s would suffice, but he indicated that 244s would be more effective in coping with the SBIR issues posed by the speakers' proximity to the dresser.

He also suggested that, given the height of my listening position, its relationship to the speakers' vertical axis, and the amelioration of SBIR by placing 244s over the dresser drawers, building taller speaker stands might not be necessary or desirable. Which saves me resources that can be devoted to building a lower-profile "flexy" equipment rack.

Another example of the quick and helpful customer service I've experienced with GIK.

I'll place the 244 order in about a week and then follow up here with pics and the sonic results.

Treating the dresser...
 

Late today FedEx delivered a pair of 2'x4' full-range 244s intended to replace the 244s I borrowed from my main living-dining-room system to try out on the front wall of my bedroom system. Before I replaced anything, however, I opted to use one of the new 244s as a horizontal stand-in for the pair of 2'x2' 244s (I shorthand them as "224s") I've ordered to treat the massive reflective surface of the lowboy dresser positioned ("jammed" is more like it) between my Paradigm Studio 20s. This would allow me to get a feel for the extent, if any, of sonic improvement I could expect with the 224s in place.

http://jimtranr.com/BR_front_SBIR_1.jpg

The panel's trashy-looking "stand" is a temporary jury-rigged variable-height collection of wood scraps to be used until I build a pair of oak stands for the 224s. To minimize SBIR, I settled on a final height that puts the top of the stand-in 244 flush with the dresser's top.

I left the second "new" 244 out of the room entirely while I conducted listening tests. For the comparisons, I started by listening with the stand-in also out of the room and then in front of the dresser.

My first audition was a 24/176 file of Eije Oue conducting the Minnesota Orchestra in the third movement of Sergei Rachmaninoff's Symphonic Dances (Reference Recordings). Without the stand-in in place, the movement (in which Rachmaninoff bats the "Dies Irae" around in a variety of incarnations) sounded as I had come to expect with the bedroom walls and first and second reflection points treated--open, with a discernibly wide and deep soundstage, firm bass foundation, detailed mid and top end, good imaging, and good dynamics with nothing seemingly "glued" to the speakers themselves.

Now let's see what, if anything, happens with the stand-in installed. I click on the third movement again in JRiver, flop quickly onto my listening position on the bed...and WHAM! The presentation screams "palpable presence" with a more expansive soundstage with better-"lit" and -defined rear corners, more intra-soundstage "space" that translates into more-perceptible layering between orchestral sections, more liquid mids and highs, and bass definition that thumps the gut. The speakers have "disappeared" even more than before. OK, enough with the hyperbole. Let's just say I was floored and leave it at that.

For the next with/without comparison, I selected something from another Keith Johnson recording--"Beckus the Dandipratt" on the Malcolm Arnold Overture outing. Same outcome, except the venue is different, and that's immediately discernible.

Since I got off to a late start, I'll have to do more listening comparisons tomorrow. But it already seems clear that treating the dresser's reflective mass, especially given its proximity to the speakers, was the essential next step in getting the room "right."

(For those who wonder, BTW, why two 224s instead of a single 244 for the final configuration diagrammed below, it's a matter of livability. We still have to get into the dresser drawers regularly, and moving one 224 out of the way is...well, you get it.)

http://jimtranr.com/Bedroom_audio_system.jpg

A big thank-you to Brian Pape for his guidance on this phase of the project. The 244 is the right way to go.

--Jim

You wife is an angel of angels.

I am lucky I am allowed a Sonos Play:5 in our bedroom.

Hanging panels is out of the question.

Cool story.

Yes, that she is, thanks.

--Jim

One other takeaway from the overall room treatment scheme here is a significant broadening of the listening "sweet spot". While that was especially noticeable with the perceived expansion of the soundstage and increased articulation of its inner space after installing the "stand-in" 244, I suspect that killing reflections at rear-wall center with the 12"x48" Monster has a lot to do with it.

More listening due today, with a string quartet or two, jazz, massed choral, and maybe even some opera and Broadway on the roster. If anything "new" turns up during the auditions, I'll post my impressions.

A real fun ride. Especially since I can do it lying down on the job.

--Jim

"You've finally achieved what you wanted to."

That's my wife's assessment after spending about an hour-and-a-half last evening listening to the bedroom system churn out everything from Bernstein (the Turtle Creek Chorale rendering "Make Our Garden Grow" from "Candide") to Brubeck ("Take Five") to Borodin (the Cleveland Quartet's take on his String Quartet No. 2's second movement ["Baubles, Bangles, and Beads", you know--it sounds much more compelling in its original scherzic incarnation]) to Hugo Friedhofer (the suite of his "The Sun Also Rises" on the Kenneth Wilkinson-engineered "Captain Blood" recording from the excellent 1970's RCA-released film score series conducted by Charles Gerhardt).

She's nailed it, seconding the impression I'd already taken away from the previous evening's audition and yesterday afternoon's follow-up listening session. Oh, she still shakes her head at the room's Stonehengian ambience. But she comprehends and appreciates the "why" of it, so I don't have to move anything so much as an iota. And she betrays no hint of "Do we really have to have those things in here?" So that could-have-been-a-nasty-issue is settled.

Just a couple of follow-up observations:

(1) What I noted earllier about the impact of virtually full room treatment continues to hold true. While recordings intended by the producing-engineering team to portray humongous venue scale do just that with an increased sense of intra-soundstage space as well as broader and deeper boundaries and better-"lit" rear corners, close-miked productions recorded in sardine-can venues remain close-miked productions recorded in sardine-can venues, the only difference being that they exhibit greater and more nuanced instrumental and vocal detail including attack and decay.

(2) Seconds before "The Sun Also Rises" suite ended, I was nearly lifted from my middle-of-the-bed slouch by a momentary very-low-end growl I hadn't heard before I put the "stand-in" 244 in front of the dresser. "What's that?" my wife asked. Maybe a big truck passing by on the street, I ventured (we experience that rumbling sensation here every now and then). So I replayed the last several seconds of the track. Thrice. KA-WHOOM! each time. Yup, it's in the score (and it belongs there, given the nature and flow of the suite's climax). What had been an indistinct, ignorable grunt suddenly had its own well-defined "I'm here!" personality. I didn't know the Studio 20's had it in them. And wouldn't have if I hadn't treated the dresser front.

Needless to say, I'm a more than happy camper.

--Jim

OK, just one more post...
 

to show you the final configuration with what I call the 224s in place. They arrived this afternoon.

http://jimtranr.com/BR_front_SBIR_3.jpg

Quick listens to tracks from four different recordings indicate no significant differences from what I heard and reported on earlier with a single 244 installed horizontally in front of the dresser. Which means it's all good.

You'll note that I've separated the 224s so their outer edges are closer to "their" respective speakers. I'll probably "play" for a few days with that panel-to-speaker distance to see if there's any audible change in what I hear from a given recording.

One advantage of getting a pair of 224s that I hadn't thought of until today: Given their portability, I can easily take one out to the living-dining room and put it in front of the 40" flat screen whenever I want to listen "seriously" to the main system.

Holy smokes! I think I'd be talking 1 octave higher (conservatively speaking)! Now if there were a pair of SF Strads.....I'd suck it up. ;)

Congrats! It's all about compromise, isn't it?

Lol!!!

Thanks, cohibaman.

And yes on "compromise". I'm very lucky. When I started this mission-creep project, I didn't think I was going to get past the wall 244s and Monsters--and even that was a crap shoot. I was lucky because I had main-system traps I could cannibalize to demo the improvement rendered by a basic corner/wall setup. It was step-by-step from there to the first reflection point and then the second. And quite honestly, I think it's when she saw beach towels she'd just laundered hanging from the dresser's top drawers that she just gave up. Hence the 224s fronting the dresser.

What's good about it is that she likes what she's hearing even if Stonehenge Modern isn't quite what she'd envisioned as the room's motif.

--Jim

A revised assessment
 

"Quick listens" can be deceptive. I'd said in an earlier post that I noted no significant performance differences between the single 244 centered in front of the dresser and a pair of 224s separated by a few inches from each other so their outer edges were closer to their respective speakers' inner edges.

Long-term listens comparing the two configurations knock that initial assessment into a cocked hat. There is a difference...and while not earth-shaking, it isn't subtle.

The bottom line is that the separated-224 placement elicits more overall detail, more impactful, better-defined bass (thereby lending more foundational weight to a given performance), and a somewhat greater sense of intra-soundstage space (assuming that the performers haven't been hard-panned into the confines of one speaker or the other).

In this instance--and I put it that way because I consider my experience as descriptive of a particular setup rather than one-size-fits-all prescriptive--it appears that the separated-panel placement more effectively mitigates the SBIR presented by the dresser than the single 244 which leaves a larger reflective surface immediately adjacent to each speaker.

Jim

And a "height matters" p.s....
 

Having set the 224s atop DIY 4½"-tall "stands" (read "cut-to-size wood scraps") so the traps cover the full height of the dresser, I decided to elevate the sitting-on-the-floor first- and second-reflection-point 244s an equal amount.

Since I have lots of wood scraps, I did it just for the heck of it and didn't expect to hear any difference. When I flop on the bed for a listening session, my ear height is about 41", and a flush-to-the-floor mounting puts the 244's top at 48". So, even discounting the panel's ¾" frame thickness, that leaves the "un-standed" 244's absorptive surface extending about 6¼" above my ears. More than enough, right, to deal with the chest-high curtained window on one side and a louvered-wood-closet door on the other?

Uh-uh.

I ran listening comparison tests, using a DSD128 download of Antal Dorati conducting Igor Stravinsky's Firebird (Mercury), a 16/44 rip of Eije Oue conducting the final movement of Aaron Copland's Third Symphony (Reference Recordings), a 16/44 rip of the "Rhythm" movement of Eric Coates' Four Centuries (ASV), a DXD download of William Steinberg conducting the second movement of Beethoven's Symphony No. 3 ("Eroica") (Command), and a 16/44 rip of Sarah Vaughan singing "Fascinating Rhythm" from her collaboration with Michael Tilson Thomas in Gershwin Live (Columbia).

In each instance, I heard greater focus and clarity and a bit more bass solidity with the 244s elevated on their makeshift stands. The differences were significant enough to rule out confirmation bias as a factor.

I also didn't hear any static. I told my wife what I was up to, she took one look at the elevated 244s, and said, "Oh." That was it. So now I'm going to fashion permanent stands out of some decent red oak.

As always, I present this as descriptive of this particular listening environment and not one-size-fits-all prescriptive. Well, except for maybe one thing. I've always found an understanding significant other to be indispensable with this sort of thing.

Jim

Amazing how many ways sound can be improved. And by tiny increments.

In some respects, audio, like football, is a game of inches.

Now that the trap configuration is set, I'll turn to building a lower-profile, shallower equipment rack to reduce what I can of left-front SBIR.

"...a game of inches..."
 

The next step in my "Stonehenge-the-Bedroom-System" project focused on the following question:

Would a change from this...

http://jimtranr.com/Old_Rack_2.png

to this...

http://jimtranr.com/New_Rack.png

effect a perceptible improvement, if any, in what I hear at my bed-top listening position? If so, to what extent? And would the improvement warrant continuation to the next step, an attempt to reduce SBIR further by replacing the equipment cabinet with an open-frame "flexy" rack to present even less reflective surface, particularly from the rack's right side, to the close-aboard left speaker?

The change you see in the two photos was accomplished by lopping the top five inches off the cabinet (including the cabinet top) with a portable Skil saw.

That lowered the laptop (and its opened-out-during-playback reflective screen) about six inches. The chop job also allowed me to lower the left-corner 244 two-and-a-half inches so that it now hangs at the same height as the front wall's center Monster and right 244 and lowers it relative to the left Paradigm Studio 20 so the speaker "sees" a tad more of the 244's absorptive surface behind it.

I frankly didn't expect to hear much, if any, difference in the sonic presentation, since the laptop's open screen still presents a substantial reflective surface immediately behind the speaker.

Whoops, was I ever surprised. No, the bedroom wasn't transformed into the Concertgebouw as I listened to familiar rips and hi-rez downloads with the "five-inch tweak" in play. But more instrumental and spatial-cue detail became evident on the left side, "opening up" the overall presentation and rendering it a more coherent whole, both laterally and fore-and-aft, increasing the sensation of "step into the soundstage and touch someone" where the mixing engineer hasn't gone pan-pot crazy.

Well worth the sawing and sanding time...and an impossible-to-ignore incentive to get cracking on the open-frame rack.

Jim

One last thing that had to be done...via DIY
 

Preface: Because this last project was DIY, I considered posting it as a new item in the Acoustical Treatment forum. But since the project itself completes the treatment of the bedroom audio system as a minor supplement to the existing GIK installation, I'm posting it here to put it in its overall context.

The bedroom audio system's original acoustic treatment complement was predicated on the assumption that the two jewel cases parked atop the dresser on either side of the center Monster would eventually be moved out of the room. But after due consideration, my wife concluded that for practical reasons the cases would stay where they were. As suggested by the first photo, the proximity of each case to its respective speaker presents a not insignificant SBIR problem.

http://jimtranr.com/Mini_Trap_case.jpg

I knew going in that covering each case with an appropriately-dimensioned 3/4"-thick slab of on-hand packing foam was hardly a solution, though I soldiered on with that yeah-they're-only-there-for-looks arrangement for several weeks before deciding that I had to get real.

Based on an earlier email discussion with Bryan Pape regarding the SBIR issue presented by the dresser's massive wooden front which resulted in the purchase of two 2'x2' 244s, I decided that I'd need a 12"x15" rough equivalent of a 244 to front each jewel case. My wife rolled her eyes...but ultimately it came down to "Okay, Jim, if that's what you really want."

With DeWalt table and miter saws in my tiny basement workshop, a heavy-duty Stanley staple gun, a scrap hardboard panel to square-form the fabric cover, and an old futon frame from which to cadge pine slats I could fashion into a basic frame, I figured I could go DIY. I ordered a single 2"-thick 2'x4' Knauf 6 PCF acoustic "board" and then went off to the local Jo-Ann Fabric store. There I got some muslin ticking and a host of other-customer funny looks (I was the only male in the store) as I held up bolts of cloth to the light to get an idea of their acoustic transparency.

Here's the back end of one of the workshop results.

http://jimtranr.com/Mini_Trap_Back_1a.jpg

The front end with two Knauf batts, one behind the other, forming a 4" trap. In cutting the Knauf panel, I found a utility knife useful only to perform the initial scoring of the surface. Using a hacksaw gave me the reasonably square cuts I was able to make.

http://jimtranr.com/Mini_Trap_Front_1.jpg

The trap covered. I did the get-it-tight stapling, but my wife's the real hero in figuring out how to fold the excess fabric corner-tight and then doing it like the good sport she is.

http://jimtranr.com/Mini_Trap_covered.jpg

Finally, how the new traps fit in the big picture. Please pardon the tilt--I shot this while sprawled out on the bed.

http://jimtranr.com/Mini_Trap_Bedroom_1.jpg

The end sonic result? Nothing subtle about it. Much better, woolly-free bass definition. Better overall sonic resolution. And, where the recordings embed it, a greater sense of space.

Happiness is...

Jim

Any possibility of too much absorption and too little diffusion up front?

If the speakers were dipoles, that might be an issue. But to these ears, the front-wall trap configuration doesn't deaden, darken, or close up the sonic presentation. To the contrary--and this may seem counterintuitive--there's more ambient and upper-frequency "air" evident in well-recorded program with the new "mini" traps in place. I attribute that to the clearing out of low-end "mud" that obscured to at least some degree what was occurring further up the frequency ladder.

Note that the room isn't quite 'enry 'iggins' undiscovered tomb. Scatter-plated 244s are on the rear wall, and the closet to my listening-position right is fronted by wood-slatted folding doors that also provide some scattering.

Jim

This is a great real world case study Jim, thank you for sharing. I have a very unconventional room layout that I'm also embarking on a journey to acoustically treat. I'm going to try and document here as you did as this is super helpful.

Regarding your first reflection point panels, did you try the 244s with scatter plates in this position? Diffusion is still the biggest mystery to me, when to use and when not.

No, robd2, as indicated earlier in the thread, I'd tried the scatter-plated 244s at only the second reflection points. And thought full-range 244s in that position elicited "better" performance from the system.

However, I conducted that audition before finishing up the acoustic treatment with the DIY panels covering the jewel cases...and making a number of component changes (replacing the active preamp with a passive, upgrading the adapter connecting the Uptone Audio REGEN to my USB DAC, replacing the standard USB 3.0 cable connecting the music-source external drive to the laptop with a Wireworld Starlight, slipping Stillpoints UltraMinis under the laptop, DAC, and amp, and--as of this coming Tuesday--replacing my old Tara speaker cable with Blue Jeans/Belden 10-gauge).

Once the new speaker cable settles in, I'll give the scatter-plated 244s a go at the first reflection points and maybe again at the second reflection points to see what, if any, changes I hear. I don't know the precise auditioning timeline, as I'm now neck-deep in a murder mystery I started writing in July and am spending most of my time these days working on that.

If I hear any changes that I consider improvements with a repositioning of the scatter-plates at either reflection point, I'll post here.

Jim

A minor(?) addition...
 

If you've followed this thread and been subjected to the occasional photo and/or positioning diagram, you've probably noticed that with the bedroom door open there's effectively no right front corner to trap. Besides, placing a trap in that location could interfere with foot traffic in and out of the room.

But, being a self-styled audiophile with an amazingly forbearing spouse (though she's drawn a redline at putting up a "cloud" in there), I decided to see how placing a 12"x48" Monster filched from the living-dining-room system in that location would impact the audible performance of the bedroom rig. The door, after all, is veneer-faced hollow-core, which suggests to me no-no's like "reflection" and "sound board".

I first tried hanging the Monster on one of those felt-covered plastic doortop hooks you can find at Bed Bath & Beyond so its height would correspond to that of the front-wall 244s and center Monster array. Right away it was obvious that doing so extended the lateral soundstage, particularly on large-scale orchestral recordings (symphonies, concerti, ballet, and "big" film scores). It also improved front-to-back layering on recordings not perspective-flattened in the mixing process.

But how would aural performance fare if I simply planted the Monster on the floor, as shown in the photo below? Even better, as it turns out. The extended soundstage was there, all right. So, too, the layering, and an even more palpable presentation of intra-soundstage space, sustain, and decay. I won't recount the number of OMGs uttered while listening from one piece to the next.

End result: I'll order another trap so I can return the "loaner" to the living-dining-room system. What's nice about the 12"x48" trap is that it's portable enough to be moved without hassle into that location for serious listening and out at other times.

https://www.audioaficionado.org/pict...pictureid=4656

https://www.audioaficionado.org/pict...pictureid=4655

Hey Jim, does the murder mystery involve a wife killing an audiophile? :stirthepot::64714-slap::D

ROTFL!

No, Randy, though that's a great idea for one. But, tolerant as she is, Mrs. T refers every now and then to the panels as "those things". And I'm sure she'll have something choice to say when the new Monster due to ship on Friday shows up at our door. :D

More than five months ago I indicated to robd that once I finished tweaking the bedroom audio system I'd give diffusion another shot at the first-reflection and then at the second reflection points, and further back, by placing scatter-plated 244s there.

Although the tweaking is not yet complete--I'm awaiting an Uptone LPS-1.2 power supply upgrade for my ISO REGEN--I've done the diffusion listening tests in the following order:

1. I borrowed a pair of scatter-plated 244s from my living-dining-room system (so I wouldn't have to remove similar panels from the bedroom's rear walls) to test their effect at the first reflection point;

2. I moved the borrowed S-P panels to the second-reflection point (and some points further back) and reinstalled standard 244s at the first-reflection point;

3. I returned the borrowed S-P panels to the living-dining-room system and placed 2'x2' SRL Acoustics polystyrene QRD diffusers atop the second-reflection-point four-foot-tall 244s;

4. I put the 244s down on their sides so the bottom of each SRL diffuser was parked two feet above the floor.

In each instance, my ears were at least five feet from the respective-side scatter plate or diffuser. I tried different listening positions (a tricky proposition atop a bed) from extreme nearfield to the apex of a roughly equilateral triangle based on the toed-in positions of my Paradigm Studio 20s. What I settled on as the "ideal" position put my ears just slightly forward of the side-to-side plane formed between the scattering/diffusion devices. I diagrammed the room layout three posts earlier in this thread.

For source material, I listened to rips and downloaded 16/44 tracks of digital remasters of analog-sourced Lyrita classical recordings engineered and pressed by Decca during the 1960's and 1970's. I selected those because I'm familiar with the performances (compositions by British composers William Alwyn, Arnold Bax, Gustav Holst, and E.J. Moeran) and the naturalness of the mostly-Kenneth Wilkinson-engineered recordings. My reasoning: If anomalies showed up in these recordings, the rest was inescapably forgetaboutit.

Conclusion: I've reverted to the original trap configuration diagrammed three posts below. In each instance where scatter or diffusion was employed at either the first- or second-reflection points, or points further back along the side walls, I heard peaky mids not unlike the squawks emanating from a horn-loaded midrange driver or two I played with way back (I mean way back) in the Dark Ages. I could discern no benefit (e.g., a sense or perception of increased spaciousness or "airiness") that would even begin to offset the audible downside.

So in this room, at least, the rear-wall scatter plates suffice.

Excellent writeup Jim, thanks for following through. Your documented "experiments" are very informative to those of us also trying to tune our rooms.

Great to follow your thread Jim.
Did you ever contemplate the possibility to go with high end headphones instead if speakers. It could be an alternative if/when you reach the end of the line with regards to room treatment.

Thanks, bigblue. I'm strictly a listening-to-speakers guy, so headphones aren't even a remote consideration at this point. I'm fortunate in having a spouse who doesn't mind if music streams out of the open-door bedroom--not infrequently at high levels--while she's elsewhere in the house, even when she's watching TV in the living room. (Sorry, guys, she doesn't have any sisters.)

As for "end of the line", I'm virtually there. A 2'x4' Monster is due here on Thursday and will replace the 1'x4' pair at front-wall center. I'll park one of those "skinny" Monsters at the door so I can send the loaner home to the living room.

The last trapping option I want to try is turning the second skinny Monster sideways and installing it above the center Monster (thereby creating a "T") to test what, if any, effect treating the wall-ceiling intersection at that location will have on perceived system performance. Once that's done, so am I.

While awaiting the arrival of the 2'x4' Monster...
 

to replace the two 1'x4' Monsters previously hung at front-wall center (location indicated by the bare picture hooks), I've hung one of those one-by-fours horizontally at the wall-ceiling intersection centered between the speakers. The other one-by-four now fronts the open bedroom door. Now this place is really beginning to look like Stonehenge.

https://www.audioaficionado.org/pict...pictureid=4660

Once I install the 2'x4' Monster (due here later this afternoon, a day early, wouldn't you know), I'll do listening tests and post my impressions. However, Mrs. hasn't seen this yet, so you may not hear from me.