[Syan25]

I like where this conversation is going - women , porn stars....all SOUNDS good to me

 

[tws1]

What an incredible thread! As an engineer, I think I see music just as that - music! The better I can reproduce the recording, the better it will sound.
 
With todays high quality components sounding worse than 'vintage' stuff, am I missing the point? I was really looking forward to going to UK Head-Fi meet to get a real taste of genuine hi-fi, now I'm not so sure. I saw hi-fi as sound reproduction, before I read this.... What am I missing? Wow!
 

 

[jax]

 
Quote:

Standing waves, exist in rooms of ANY dimension, simple as that. 
 
As I said earlier, carpet mostly absorbs high frequencies and does almost nothing for other frequencies which is what you should be worried about as high freqeuncies are the least of your problem. 
 
As for book cases, all I can say is that measure what you did and you'll see how well (or not) these book cases act as a bass trap or diffusor in terms of frequency response and on a waterfall graph. The reason why these book cases are "breaking room nodes" is that you're essentially changing the room dimension and hence shifting room nodes from one frequency to another.

These comments are also in line with my understanding of room treatment.  I had the same thoughts in reading through the thread, which I've been having to catch up on.  A few other thoughts that came to mind and I may be misquoting or misunderstanding there so correct me if I am. There was one comment that suggested bass absorption had to do with mass, and seemed to suggest books may serve as such.  My meager understanding of bass traps is that they do have effect on a lower and lower frequency with their internal volume, but I've never heard it suggested that a solid mass might have an mitigating effect on bass or standing waves - though it may shift things around in the room.  I thought bass traps used the internal volume to dissipate the energy of the waves that penetrate.  You also need to judge the treatments applied by the specific room, its shape, and its volume.  The simplistic formula someone suggested of bass traps in the corners behind the speakers, assuming there are corners behind the speakers, and a few other absorption panels is a good general starting point, perhaps, but different rooms will present different challenges and there is no one easy-install set of treatments that work in every room.  I'm not a porn star, and I'd be in much more trouble if I had a girlfriend than if I add room treatments as my wife would not take kindly to the former.  Actually she does not much appreciate the latter either, but she realizes it's important to me.  Still, certainly it certainly can be a visual challenge where significant others are concerned.  My buddy, Albert Porter, over on Audiogon, has an interesting room treatment that was purpose built into the framing of his listening room.  The treatments are mounted between the rails and then covered with an acoustically opaque fabric that looks, for all intents and purposes, like a finished white ceiling with rails (very pleasing).  You can check out pics of his room on the link where you get some sense of the ceiling treatment.  The treatment is by Whisper Wall  though I'm sure there are other companies doing similar things.  Obviously it doesn't come cheap.  I agree that some mitigation with natural objects are a good second choice.  House plants make pretty good diffusion.  Someone mentioned getting furniture with rounded corners - I'd add that the actual materials will also have an effect on the acoustics, not just the design.  I changed the couch in my listening room from a huge fabric sectional, which I found out was highly absorptive and did wonders for the sound.  Swapping that out for a more rounded, and softer LEATHER couch was a bit step backwards because of the much more reflective surface of the leather.  That difference was not at all subtle.  In that case I went from very squared off, modern furniture (that happened to be very soft and absorptive) to an more rounded, traditional style that was more reflective - so this did not do what was being previously suggested.  This is certainly one thing headphones have over speakers - none of this has to be dealt with.  I'll still take speakers every time.  I'd disagree with the recent post by the OP which suggests speakers are necessarily more involving.  I think that is an entirely personal call and probably more to the point of the question the thread asks.  I'm sure there are many who would consider headphones to be far more involving because of the total isolation (or other reasons).  Though I prefer speakers, I don't think that's the last word....just my own preference. 

 

[Golden Ears]

 I realize that true bass traps do a far better job than trying to conjure home furnishings into acoustic traps... and angling the bookcases does change the room dimensions somewhat... which spreads out the room nodes so you don't have a single very prominent node. True bass traps are about 4 - 5 times as effective. But again... you are better off being in a  better sounding room from the start. I've been able to do room treatments with women who seem to want to hold onto me... but the really pretty ones that are used to getting their way...well... I could never even use my large speakers... uggghh.. into storage they went.
 
I figure I am lucky enough to turn the home into stone henge... with speakers.. I shouldn't press my luck.  I am able to influence furniture and rug choices... but even so.. The porn star reference (I meant former)  is just a joke to indicate that your woman couldn't easily replace you and would put up with acoustic treatments. So far... I have never met a woman would would put up with them..that A'goner did a fantastic job with integrating them as architectural detail.
 
Where I am now... has an Ocean front  View- two steps to the sand... but has few continuous uninterupted walls with more than 10 feet before a window or molding or corner- or bedroom door interferes... so the sound suffers a bit.. horrible low ceilings in my sound room too.
 
Audio is about compromises... somewhat..and life is a even bigger one.
 
I can tell you this... put 70K of great audio into a cube shaped room, or a room with exposed brick, or cinderblock... and you may as well have spent it on high end car stereo (hard to make sound listenable at any price)  or headphones. Headphones are the only solution for unsurmountable bad acoustics. If your room sounds bad.. move. Try rearranging the furniture and putting speakers on a  different wall... but frankly.. it is a small incremental fix... moving is the only real fix.
 
Oh... I also made the leather couch mistake...once.. over stuffed sectionals just suck up echo.
 
Also since my speakers are designed to reflect of the rear wall... all treatments on the rear wall have resulted in going backwards.....stripping the air and space out of the system. For direct radiating speakers ...it is different.. For instance the "Clue" loudspeakers.... need that rear wall treatment as they are designed to reinforce bass by being placed close to a wall.  My friend just got them,
 
 

 

[log0]

Hello fellow head-fi'ers!
I have to say this thread has been an interesting and thought provoking read.
 
I'm writing because only a few hours ago I received my LCD-2s. Let me preface this by saying that I'm an amateur with respect to head-fi and I lack experience listening to a proper headphone system with a decent DAC>AMP>HP. My first real forray into the audiophile world began a couple months ago when I visited a local home theater store and had the opportunity to listen to an incredible stereo system that totally blew away the limits of what I thought was possible with audio reproduction. That dedicated theater/listeing room consisted of a PerfectWave Transport>PerfectWave DAC>McIntosh C2200 Preamp>McIntosh 2301 (300watt) tube monoblocks>Reference 3A Grand Veena speakers. I listened to some Patricia Barber's albums (Fortnight in France and Cafe Blue), in addition to a Dire Straights CD, some Nils Lofgren acoustic guitar, and some others that escape me at the moment. Simply an incredible, surreal experience. I can go on about what a revelation this was for me. I believed the sound around me was legitimately produced by instruments and voices and felt I was at a live performance. I never knew two speakers could envelope me in sound better than a 5.1 system! Now, all that gear cost some $20,000+.
 
Enter head-fi. A cheaper ticket to audio nirvana? That's what I reasoned until I read this thread. I've literally spent days worth of time researching over the last couple months and investigating how best to spend my money to get a proper headphone system. My source would be an iMac/Macbook Pro, probably outputting a digital signal via a toslink optical cable or buying a Hiface USB to SPDIF converter, or stream music to a capable DAC such as the PerfectWave with the optional Bridge. I concluded that my headphones would be the LCD-2. My amplifier a Little Dot MK VI+ (still not acquired). My source is still up in the air, but I believe to have narrowed it down to the Reference 7 and PerfectWave DAC. All this would approximately cost $3000, a lot cheaper than a full blown audiophile grade stereo setup, but can it blow me away the way that stereo system did I heard a couple months ago? Or is this another case of "you get what you paid for"? Well, you always get what you pay for, but I expect a lot of performance out of $3000.
 
Well like I said, I just received my LCD-2s. First let me say that these are packaged incredibly well and the guys at Audez'e have great customer service. Onto the headphones. First impressions..."These things are freaking huge". Princess Leia's hairdo has nothing on these guys. But surprisingly they are very comfortable, no "head clamp" force that I've read some of the earlier models had.
 
Having no proper hifi source or hifi amplifier, my initial perception of these headphones may not do justice to what they can actually achieve. Perhaps I started building my headphone system backwards, with the headphones first instead of the source. Anyways, all I had to connect my LCD-2's were was my home theater receiver, a Pioneer VSX1019-AHK. This is because the Pioneer receiver is the only component in my apartment at this time that has the 1/4" plug necessary for the stock LCD-2 cable.The Pioneer receiver does an excellent job driving my home theater system which consist of Definitive Technology BP7002 towers (left and right), a small Energy Micro center and surround speakers. This is hardly an audiophile setup but it does a commendable job of bringing Bluray movies right into my small apartment living room. Not only that but the BP7002 towers do, in my humble opinion, an excellent job of bringing stereo music to life as well. The Pioneer 1019 utilizes a Wolfson WM8728 DAC chip. I'm not sure of the merits of this chip but I thought I'd throw that out in case anyone would like to know.
 
For music, I have FLAC files stored on my MacBook Pro which is then streamed wirelessly via PS3 Media Server (software) to my PlayStation 3 (over a 5GHz wireless N network), then sent over a very fat (not sure of the AWG) monoprice HDMI cable to the Pioneer where the digital to analog conversion takes place and out to the either my headphones or my speakers. I realize that this is not the most optimum of connections (wireless, playstation, monoprice cables) or equipment.
 
For the purpose of this post, I'm comparing the sound from my stereo BP7002 towers to the LCD-2s listening to various FLAC albums which include Jazz at the Pawnshop, Make Yourself by Incubus, Stadium Arcadium by Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Cafe Blue by Patricia Barber, Kind of Blue by Miles Davis, and Abbey Road by The Beatles. In essence I am comparing two different experiences which I believe is a fair comparison given that everything within the system is the same except for the output from my Pioneer receiver.
 
Honestly I was expecting more out of the headphones. My $600 speakers did a better job bringing me into the music than the LCD-2s. Now before I (or anyone else for that matter) makes any snap judgements I know that the headhphones could sound better on another higher grade system. The system I was testing after all was made for home theater, not for headphones. I also do not know how good of a job my Pioneer receiver does driving headphones as it was not built primarily for this purpose. The real burning question with me is if I sink another $2500 and acquire a proper DAC and Headphone amplifer with proper cables in between each, will my experience change drastically? Would I prefer the headphones over the speakers? I wish I could find out without having to spend anymore money, so I'm keeping my eyes out for a Head-Fi meet in the South Florida area.
 
I thought of purchasing some cheaper components at first to see if headphones are really for me. After reading some of SP Wild's commendations on the Muse DAC Mini that sells for about $100 shipped on ebay (which he rated higher than the Bryston DBA-1) I was thinking of purchasing this and pairing it to a relatively cheap but high performance amplifier like the Lyr.
 
I apologize to those who are looking for a more detailed description of how the LCD-2s sounded. I can say without a doubt that I do notice more detail in the music which I sampled and instrument separation was definitely noticeable, but when I unplugged the headphones and the speakers kicked in there was no doubt I found listening to the speakers to be a more enjoyable experience. Perhaps I need time to break in the LCD-2s as I put them to the test right away.
 
I doubt a comparison between headphones and speakers is hardly fair because it is very much like comparing apples to oranges, two totally different experiences all together but each of which consumes time and money -- just evaluating which experience is a better investment of both. In the end this may be a matter of personal taste and listening habits.
 
I'd appreciate the feedback of anyone who has purchased a high end headphone like the LCD-2 and paired it to less than optimal gear, subsequently upgraded, and found the experience to be worth the time and money. I'd also like to hear anyone's recommendations or opinions about my post. Thanks for your time and have a great day!

 

[gsilver]

I've only read the first and last posts of the thread, and I do agree.
 
I recently moved into a larger place, allowing me the space for speakers, and the used $45 pair  of floor-standing speakers I picked up (which were $200 each new... which is why used is (usually) the best way to go) can indeed do things that my LCD-2 can't, especially in terms of spacial imaging to the sound.
 
Obviously the LCD-2s are far technically superior in a lot of ways, but even with a relatively small investment, I can already appreciate some of the advantages that good speakers can provide.
 
...good thing I'm still renting so I can't/won't invest in "permanent furniture" such as more expensive speakers anytime soon.

 

[jax]

If you are willing to trudge through the mud and primordial ooze of 10,000 + posts (many of which regard the date of order, the date of receipt as well as the wait time) you can find more input than you can shake a stick at about LCD-2's in the LCD-2 impressions thread here.  I'm sure others would appreciate if you posted the same early impressions there, regardless of  your experience as its all good, and no less valid than anyone else's thoughts.  Being a LCD-2 owner with a few months of experimenting with various amps and sources under my belt, I'll briefly respond that indeed they will respond big time to the right amp (preferably one with plenty of headroom).  I use a Violectric V181 in balanced and that combo sounds great.  For half the price the Lyr sounded outstanding with my LCD-2's at a recent meet, though I though lacked the same sort of resolution I'm used too - still I could easily live with it and be happy.  Another world class combo is with the Apex Peak Volcano, which I tried out for a bit over a week.  There are others - check out the thread and other threads, as I'm sure you must have already done.   FWIW, they are still headphones and do not bring the headphone listening experience any closer to the speaker listening experience.  They certainly do elevate headphone listening for me.

 

[sachu]

having had a reference system built around the LCD-2, i can honestly say that my entry mid -fi speaker system beats the crap out of the headphone rig. The difference is so huge that my headphone gear has seen less than 2 hours of usage in the last 2 months.
 
If you can go speakers..just do it.

 

[TheGomdoRi]

Interesting read and replies to say the least lol.
I don't have much to contribute here, but would like to drop my opinion.
After reading the OP and pages worth of replies I believe there is no clear "superior" method of listening in this discussion. And found the discussion interesting to read but rather pointless to be discussed. Don't get me wrong, I love discussions and sharing amongst community members, but I believe this discussion can be ended with a simple yet elegant phrase:
 
"To each his own"
 
It's beautiful and it pretty much can answer/sum up the thread with such simplicity.
OP's views are clearly positioned in favor of speakers, and that's great.
However, many others find portable gear to be better for them due to _____________, and that is also great.
Everybody has different standards and circumstances, therefore IMHO, there is no universal ideal. Just personal satisfaction.

Just my 2cents. Thanks for the interesting read.

 

[jax]

   Needless to say, I completely and wholeheartedly agree and find the same thing with virtually any of my systems I've put together over the years.  My current system makes the proposition of listening to the same music through headphones seem as desirable as listening in my car.  I probably use it more often than you do, Sachu, to respect the need my wife has for silence on occasion.  If that weren't there I would not own a headphone rig at all.   Being a lifelong music lover it is difficult for me to fathom that anyone who has done a direct comparison with even the very best headphone rig to a modest, and thoughtfully assembled speaker rig would find that the former brings them closer and more engaged with the music....but yes, to each their own, as the previous post suggests.  Pretty much any  debate here could be summed up with the same phrase actually - the enjoyment of music is entirely emotional and subjective. 

Quote:

having had a reference system built around the LCD-2, i can honestly say that my entry mid -fi speaker system beats the crap out of the headphone rig. The difference is so huge that my headphone gear has seen less than 2 hours of usage in the last 2 months.
 
If you can go speakers..just do it.

 

 

[Golden Ears]

Quote:

Interesting read and replies to say the least lol.
I don't have much to contribute here, but would like to drop my opinion.
After reading the OP and pages worth of replies I believe there is no clear "superior" method of listening in this discussion. And found the discussion interesting to read but rather pointless to be discussed. Don't get me wrong, I love discussions and sharing amongst community members, but I believe this discussion can be ended with a simple yet elegant phrase:
 
"To each his own"
 
It's beautiful and it pretty much can answer/sum up the thread with such simplicity.
OP's views are clearly positioned in favor of speakers, and that's great.
However, many others find portable gear to be better for them due to _____________, and that is also great.
Everybody has different standards and circumstances, therefore IMHO, there is no universal ideal. Just personal satisfaction.

Just my 2cents. Thanks for the interesting read.

It is always "To each his own" or we would all have the exact same systems...if we could afford them. But there is a reality check here. Let's be logical... a 12 year old isn't exacty going to be fantastic at picking out fine scotches..
 
Also someone who has only had  a $350 system as a reference isn't likely going to be amazing at system matching components in a $40,000 system.
 
The fact is...BETTER exists. It simply does... and if that 12 year old kid can't tell the difference between say Grey Goose and Popov vodka... great for him...ignorance is bliss.. 

Many kids would rather eat chicken fingers than Chicken Milanese. That does not mean chicken fingers are better...chicken fingers suck.
 
In the end ..."to each his own" is ,,,,about right as people buy what they feel is justified with their money.  Just don't spend your hard earned cash on chicken fingers.

 

[SoupRKnowva]

Quote:

It is always "To each his own" or we would all have the exact same systems...if we could afford them. But there is a reality check here. Let's be logical... a 12 year old isn't exacty going to be fantastic at picking out fine scotches..
 
Also someone who has only had  a $350 system as a reference isn't likely going to be amazing at system matching components in a $40,000 system.
 
The fact is...BETTER exists. It simply does... and if that 12 year old kid can't tell the difference between say Grey Goose and Popov vodka... great for him...ignorance is bliss.. 

Many kids would rather eat chicken fingers than Chicken Milanese. That does not mean chicken fingers are better...chicken fingers suck.
 
In the end ..."to each his own" is ,,,,about right as people buy what they feel is justified with their money.  Just don't spend your hard earned cash on chicken fingers.

 thats one of the funnier things ive read in a while, im also stealing part of it for my sig

 

[Pricklely Peete]

 
Quote:

Standing waves, exist in rooms of ANY dimension, simple as that. 
 
As I said earlier, carpet mostly absorbs high frequencies and does almost nothing for other frequencies which is what you should be worried about as high frequencies are the least of your problem. 
 
As for book cases, all I can say is that measure what you did and you'll see how well (or not) these book cases act as a bass trap or diffuser in terms of frequency response and on a waterfall graph. The reason why these book cases are "breaking room nodes" is that you're essentially changing the room dimension and hence shifting room nodes from one frequency to another.

That is absolutely true. AFAIK there is nothing that can substitute for a purpose built bass trap (among other panels built to control/absorb/diffract/diffuse or reflect a broad freq range). Very few items,if any in the regular household can effectively or fully replace purpose built acoustical devices...Unfortunately these acoustic treatments can be very expensive and that is a consideration that few wives will accept from an economic standpoint not to mention visual standpoint which brings us back to the beauty and simplicity of a headphone system....none of these issues matter for that application and it is one of the biggest draws to it that I can cite other than the wholly unique immediacy of the experience. The worst aspect of headphone based listening (for me at least) is the sound stage...I can never get quite used to that centered in the head feeling it gives me...the HD800s and the AKG K1000's lessen that feeling but not enough for me to switch to headphones on a full time basis. I need that 8 to 10 ft of separation and the room interaction, the visceral feel of the bass etc...
 
It's interesting to note that some of that visceral feel can be captured with shaker devices (installed in the listening chair) or in my case by leaving the main system's subs on accidentally.....I was amazed at how well the bass integrated and gave the headphone experience an added dimension that it lacks....try it out if you guys have a sub and a Y cable on your amps outputs (if it has pre outs that are active at the same time as the headphone output). A Y cable on the headphone outs would also work going through the speaker level inputs of the sub...a line level signal is better. At any rate it's a really cool experience that does not need much volume to work it's magic. A happy accident that worked surprisingly well but totally impractical in some respects.
 
PS: GE is correct a square or cube is a room better left for another purpose, no amount of treatment will cure a square's acoustical properties short of turning it into a anechoic chamber and even then no self respecting engineer would consider anything other than rectangular shaped room to begin with...no glass, no doors other than the entrance/exit. Half the battle is selecting a room worthy of treating...an ideal room would be something like this...20 x 30 ft 8 ft ceiling at the system end of the room going to 12 ft at the other end. No windows and one door..the door could be faced with the same material used on the wall and then countersunk into the framing to close flush with the wall.....GE is also correct about the back wall being the ideal location for a diffuser panel (no attenuation here as that HF energy is critical to the end result). Speakers that require corner loading for their bass response like the old Klipsch ( I forget the model) and the Allison (something something) types present another acoustical challenge entirely so for the purpose of this discussion advice for the most part is directed at conventional forward firing free standers or dipole types. Acoustic susp dynamic driver vs dipole present similar challenges with the latter needing much further placement from the back wall and some absorption of the back wave. Cabinets unless of major mass and special materials (like Wilson uses) or B&W have a resonant freq and can add to the problem (smearing) in the critical lower mid range...some interesting devices have been invented to deal with such things but they come and go. Some Isomat material works quite well if you have cabs that excite easily.
 
The basic method of operation for a Bass trap is exactly as it's named...think of it like a transmission line without an exit for that energy...the energy is trapped and bounced around inside until it cancels out...it a brilliant concept but not easy to build without the proper materials...the trap section needs specific dampening material and the divider wall which allows the bass to enter but not escape is a closely guarded secret for a lot of the manufacturers that make these things...if they were easy to build and the materiel easy to get from Home Depot I would have built some years ago......the DIY traps built with OTS Home Depot supplies just don't do as good a job as the pro built stuff.

 

[Pricklely Peete]

Quote:

having had a reference system built around the LCD-2, i can honestly say that my entry mid -fi speaker system beats the crap out of the headphone rig. The difference is so huge that my headphone gear has seen less than 2 hours of usage in the last 2 months.
 
If you can go speakers..just do it.

Maggie 1.6 QR's are outstanding speakers.........congrats on a fine choice.
 
Peete.

 

[Golden Ears]

I was at Lyric Hi-Fi in NYC when they were designing, later constructing, and tuning their reference room. It was an amazing room. It is still there.I was also at Goodwin's Audio in Waltham before and after their designing of their major reference room. It was an amazing room. It is still there.
 
 
First off, let me tell you that I am not a sound engineer by trade, nor am I a musician, and I am not a designer of rooms purposely acoustically built for sound reproduction. What I can tell you, comes from my own personal experience, and I shake my head when I think of how much time and thought I'd devoted to this project which we call sound reproduction. In fact, perhaps it that is a misnomer, we should really call it music reproduction. I only know what I hear, and I also do listen to feedback from others. What I consistently hear from others, that I set up sound systems, and the way that I tweak the systems to their fullest potential is beyond what others are capable of doing. For this reason, I've been flown to many places to get the fullest potential out of people's sound systems. Sometimes they don't like what I have to say. For instance, I might tell them that their amplifier is inappropriate for the rest of their system. Or that the speakers are too large for the room, or too small. Whether the speakers are just not capable of doing what they want them to do, no matter what they match them with in terms of other gear or what they do with their room. I do know this, if people follow my advice, I have never had anyone dissatisfied with what I've been able to do.
 
In regards to these two sound rooms. It is significant to say that music reproduction, sound staging, clarity, and overall presentation is paramount to the objectives that these rooms were designed for. Lyric hi-fi in Manhattan is one of the premier audio shops. In the 1970s, and 1980s, they sold more infinity reference standards (the full-size ones) than any other store in America. Certainly, they had two large lion share of cost no object customers. But they also had to deliver on their promise.n Goodwins high-end in Waltham Massachusetts has more lines than most other audio stores, and they are also allowed to cherry pick from these lines. I've heard the Martin Logan statement loudspeakers in several different stages of their design at that particular store. I was asked by Mr. Goodwin to be his business partner in his store, before the store was built in Waltham. He was going to hire me solely for my ability to voice loudspeaker systems.
 
So let's talk about these two rooms. They certainly spent quite a bit of money, perhaps not as much money as Harman international spent in their sound rooms, but certainly more than most stores in the United States. The room at lyric hi-fi as I remember, was constructed with a floating floor of rebar and concrete that was designed specifically to isolate the floor from the IRT local subway which passed beneath the building. It had a sinusoidal shaped ceiling with wood, and bass traps. It also had unevenly placed exposed brick, and archways made of the same material also designed to break up standing waves. Lenny told me that no walls in that room were built to be parallel. The door was at least as heavy as the walls, and had to be opened and closed with a special arm. The room had wall-to-wall carpeting, and for lighting there were a few sconces. I saw the room in its preconstruction stage, and shortly after it was done. Lenny, the salesman at the time, and now owner, told me that the room came out to be too acoustically dead, and that they had to make modifications to it after it was constructed. I believe the cost in the 1980s was somewhere between 100 and $150,000 to construct it. The room in Goodwin's audio in Waltham was quite large, it was a rectangle that was built with very exacting dimensions, I don't know if they use Cardis Golden ratio numbers, but it was something like that. The room was not wall-to-wall carpeted, and Alan, the owner of the store, knew that my family had a 60' x 40' rug that was extremely lush and handwoven that he wanted to use in the store. I, of course, knew the carpet would have been completely destroyed by moving speakers weighing hundreds of pounds each. So I declined letting him use the rug which was in Hawaii at the time. This particular room had wooden angles made of plywood and stuffed with sound absorbing material. I'm still not convinced that this is their best sounding room, and think that one of the smaller rooms on the same side of the hall is actually better sounding. I don't know exactly how much they spent on this room, I can assure you it was not cheap. I can also tell you, that for less money than their reference systems, and in a room without special room treatment other than overstuffed furnishings, heavy area rugs covering most of the floor, and reasonable quality electronics that would be at least in the top 20% of available high end audio gear, but not in the top 5% I was able to exceed the sound quality in both of those rooms, in one case, I was using the same speakers as an lyric hi-fi, and in the other case I got better sound than the Martin Logan statements–at least the final version, I actually think the prototype sounded better then the final versions, but the sound quality was extremely comparable.
 
I can absolutely agree, that using a poor sounding room is a complete waste of time and money. But I can also say with a great deal of conviction that it is possible to get a room to sound reasonably well if it's dimensions are not working against you, and if the construction of that room is such that the walls did not profoundly resonate. If you own a home, it's certainly easy to invest a little money to make a poor sounding room sound a bit better–perhaps by changing the dimensions somewhat, and if you rent, and you have the time to look for better room, I am sure you can find one. For the most part, I find people using acoustic treatment the most in rooms that should've never been chosen for sound reproduction in the first place. For God sakes, it's like putting running shoes on the feet of a hippopotamus. It's like pouring hollandaise sauce on a McDonald's Egg McMuffin. Or putting CAM 2 racing gasoline in a Toyota Prius. If you go to Best Buy and price out Flat sceen TV's  did you ever wonder where they made their money in the deal? Where is the profit? Is it in the television? No, actually a great deal the profit in the deal is from the connecting cables, the brackets and stands, and the power conditioners. Profit generation, it's important. People compare the price of the televisions very carefully from dealer to dealer they compare the delivery costs, but rarely do they consider to compare prices on interconnects, or brackets or stands, or installation fees, or power conditioners. That's where the profit is. There are very lucrative profits to be made in interconnects, and also in sound absorbing materials and installation.
 
So let's say you build that perfect room. You go and buy a bunch of sound material, you pay a professional to come over and install it. You aggravate your spouse, and spend less on your electronics gear as a result. Your lease expires on your apartment, and you move. What happened to that investment in sound material? It's gone. Flushed right down the tubes. Let's say you own your own place, and you invest $4000 into optimizing the sound of a particular room. Then you get a new job offer somewhere else, and you try to sell your house–do you think you'll recoup any of that $4000? You won't. If anything, a buyer will ask you to remove it, and offer you a lower price because you have destroyed the aesthetic of the room. And for the record, the employees of one of the stores referred to these rooms as “audio graveyards”. Why? Because they aren't very suitable for living inside. As a result, people do not spend as much time in them as they anticipated, and also they end up being in there alone and isolated, this annoys their spouse. Eventually the room see very little use, and that expensive audio equipment just ends up gathering dust.
 
How do I know this? I never thought it would never happen to me. But I live on an oceanfront parcel in Southern California. The living room has a terrific view of the ocean, I think one of the best in Southern California. As a result we spend almost all of our time in the front living room. The back living room is used for my audio gear, is my man cave, but I do not get to spend very much time here. If it is later in the evening, but not too late, I can convince my spouse to come back here and listen with me. But a lot of the time, I don't get to listen to the music, because she is in the Ocean front living room and I would like to be with her. In fact, to be in this room–the man cave, in the daytime seems rather ridiculous. We have to move in 80 days, our lease has expired, and likely our rent will go up by several thousand dollars–or the owner will sell it for profit. I have to find new home for my audio gear–my prime directive in this case is to make sure that the property that we settle on buying has a great living room for my speakers so that I can listen to them more of the time. I cannot tell you what kind of the splitting headache I get from listening to these in ceiling speakers we have in our current oceanfront living room–it's horrible, and it's not just me it's also my spouse. Her daughter is a little hard of hearing, likely from her ridiculously loud car stereo, and because her hearing is not particularly good, and because the speakers are not particularly good, she has to turn up the in ceiling speakers so loudly that we both end up with headaches. In the next home, my loudspeakers because of their superior clarity will not have to be turned up nearly as loud, will get more use out of them because they'll also be connected to our video system, and we won't have headaches anymore.We will own this new property, but once again, I don't intend to spend a lot of money on acoustic treatments–simply because I believe careful speaker placement can go a long way to fixing this. As well as proper furnishings.
 
Let's be realistic, not every music studio has perfect acoustics. In fact, most of them have very large mixing consoles and loudspeakers on the bridge of these mixing consoles that suffer from early reflection right off of the mixing console. Some of them have loudspeakers built into the walls, but these loudspeakers aren't particular superior quality in terms of sound reproduction–most of them are just good for mixing down soundtracks.A lot of the time, the speakers are too far apart from one another, or the speakers are too large for the particular room, or the speakers are too small for the room. There is also tremendous amount of highly reflective glass in the sound rooms. Sometimes the sound engineers and the people running the mixing boards aren't hearing very much reflected sound at all, because they are listening in the near field position. As a result they have no idea how it will sound in a room with reflection.For this very reason that sound is not mastered under perfect acoustic conditions, I cannot see any reason as to why perfect acoustic conditions are necessary for playback. Certainly I can understand that bad acoustic conditions will not result in good playback, but perfect acoustic conditions will only allow you to hear the defects in the recording studio more clearly, and frankly that may be a little off from what the mastering engineer was thinking when he did the mix down. He certainly is not thinking that you're going to have a perfectly constructed acoustic room. They mix often with horrible NS-10 Yamaha speakers that are chosen so that they sound like cheap college dorm speakers or stock car stereo sysems... why? Because it you can make it sound good on NS-10's  their logic is that it will sound good in your rental car or your home stereo with horrible speaker placement and bad room acoustics.  
 
That's just my 2 cents. It is based in our current reality not a contrived world of perfection and fantasy. No offense to the people doing acoustic treatments... as if done properly they will improve the sound of a room, but again starting with a reasonable sounding room and better gear IMHO will give you better results than sunken/forever lost costs in sound treatment (Yes I am sure you can unstick SOME of the stuff and take it with you for the next move) . I do believe in absorptive furnishings, and deader rear of the room, and I also believe you should try to put sound absorbing material on the wall behind your head..preferably stack it (or curve it)  in such a way to prevent a even timed reflection wall of sound. But beyond that... start with a  better room and spend more on your gear.