Optimized room-dimension ratios may not reliably produce better-sounding rooms.
Evidence
A staple of low-frequency room acoustics lore is the idea that there is a set or sets of optimized room dimension ratios that will make rooms sound better. The general assumption is that having optimally spaced mode frequencies should minimize their detrimental impacts. It intuitively makes sense that multiple clustered modes might combine into a “supermode”, or that a large gap in the mode structure could cause a hole in the combined response. People looking for a simplified path to success for room design might be tempted to simply adopt one of these “magic” room ratios, but as we shall see there is more to be considered. Before discussing where these ideas came from and whether they have merit, let us clarify what are the assumed conditions and criteria for a good room in this context. We need to ask exactly what it is we hope to “optimize”. — Toole, Floyd E, Sound reproduction- the acoustics and…, 1541
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: Optimal room ratios as originally conceived are irrelevant to sound reproduction — Toole, Floyd E, Sound reproduction- the acoustics and…, 1551; Changing room geometry barely alters loudspeaker quality rankings; Avoiding commensurate room dimensions prevents overlapping modal frequencies that cause acoustic problems (+1 more)
- yield-rescued: below the book’s yield-target cutoff, included anyway for connecting to: Optimal room ratios as originally conceived are irrelevant to sound reproduction — Toole, Floyd E, Sound reproduction- the acoustics and…, 1551; Changing room geometry barely alters loudspeaker quality rankings; Avoiding commensurate room dimensions prevents overlapping modal frequencies that cause acoustic problems (+1 more)