Quote:
Originally Posted by
julien79
➡️
Unfortunately the ideal position (for bass) is so close to the front bass trap and the speakers that it is not practical at least with the monitors I have. Maybe with shallower, less wide monitors (not even sure; but I will try with my former 5" compact monitors)
Yes, and actually even the simulators tell it. It is only porous absorption, so there are better solutions (including mixed porous / pressure traps, etc).
But it is not really a problem because they are attenuated a lot.
Biggest problem is the listening position that results in too much general bass roll-off, second problem is the floor interference (the latter can be fixed even with one subwoofer, the former I am not sure in this room but will try).
It is made out of bricks, covered by plasterboard spaced randomly depending on the wall (except on the ceiling) -- something highly asymmetrical with a +/-30 dB frequency response and very aggressive sounding mid frequencies before treatment.
Yes (3000 Pa*s/m2 for 50 and 60 cm traps, 5000 Pa*s/m2 for 30 cm traps)
Sure, but this is just a test really, and yes I will do it at low level because the O300 are not meant to be used as subwoofers and they are not really loud anyway. If the results are good, then I will consider getting real subwoofers (or perhaps build some, but I have no experience about this), maybe some small satellites that would allow to sit closer to the front wall, and maybe a hardware bass management / room EQ processor. But this is a lot of money so I must be sure it really improves things, hence this quick and dirty test with the speakers I have here.
Ah bricks and plasterboard. Makes sense.
For porous treatment in small concrete rooms, I remember reading Phillip Newell saying he recommended 36" of treatment everywhere except the floor for small rooms.
I would still test if its better to push the monitors as close to the treatment as possible. In order to tilt bass response.