Quantcast
Room acoustics MYTHS and what is a HIGH QUALITY MONITOR TOOL for you ? - Page 5 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Room acoustics MYTHS and what is a HIGH QUALITY MONITOR TOOL for you ?
Old 29th January 2013 | Show parent
  #121
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP__ ➡️
in theory, yes. ever do some measurements in one?

Not personally. I presume that the research lab at my uni had done.

By definition though - if there are echoes, it's not an anechoic room! Then it's a semi-anechoic room (which is perfectly valid - we had one of those as well).

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP__ ➡️
but interaction between room, speaker and listener is also psychoacustic. that could be a very personal thing.
Of course - it's then down to taste though, not whether the speaker actually is sounding as good as it can in that space. some people prefer dead rooms; others live-er ones.
Old 29th January 2013
  #122
Lives for gear
 
Nick Morris's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanahu ➡️
There are so many things which physics cannot measure and I really don't understand why people are fighting about measurements which tell only 60% of the story.

The aim here is to hear the purest, and the truest representation of the source signal, and guys there are so many things which FORMAL KNOWLEDGE says, which are broken by people who dared experiment things.

Don't limit yourselves with the limited knowledge that we have.

If Henry Ford believed his engineers who told him that according to books and physics it was not possible to create a V8, no V8 would have ever existed. Thanks god that Ford didn't go to school or he would be limited by conventional knowledge.

There are so many things in the sound domain which we can't put our fingers on, so how on earth can we claim that this or that is impossible.

In theory some things might be pure bulls**t, but they work!! Just like main monitors, in relatively small rooms, and monitoring at soft levels... but if it works, it works, sometimes we really should F**K theory and stop limiting ourselves.
Actually, physics can explain 100% of the story. YOU might not be able to explain it, especially if you avoided going to school and gaining conventional knowledge.

Just because something works does not mean it is optimal. It is only up to the end users to decide if their situation is good enough. If so, the design is a success.

I would never suggest working in a small room. I would never suggest that getting huge speakers will negate all poor aspects of a tiny room.

There is no way around physics, and the room will be a dominate voice.
Old 29th January 2013
  #123
70% Coffee, 30% Beer
 
Doc Mixwell's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
i think physics doesn't explain why some only use a tiny fraction of the sponge like matter in the head that god gave you..
Old 29th January 2013 | Show parent
  #124
Gear Guru
 
kennybro's Avatar
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanahu ➡️
There are so many things which physics cannot measure and I really don't understand why people are fighting about measurements which tell only 60% of the story.

The aim here is to hear the purest, and the truest representation of the source signal, and guys there are so many things which FORMAL KNOWLEDGE says, which are broken by people who dared experiment things.

Don't limit yourselves with the limited knowledge that we have.

If Henry Ford believed his engineers who told him that according to books and physics it was not possible to create a V8, no V8 would have ever existed. Thanks god that Ford didn't go to school or he would be limited by conventional knowledge.

There are so many things in the sound domain which we can't put our fingers on, so how on earth can we claim that this or that is impossible.

In theory some things might be pure bulls**t, but they work!! Just like main monitors, in relatively small rooms, and monitoring at soft levels... but if it works, it works, sometimes we really should F**K theory and stop limiting ourselves.
This sounds nice, but it fails in the physical world the vast majority of the time, if not always. The Einsteins and Fords were only able to break paradigms and find new territory because they had a deeper understanding of known science than did the average person, and they clearly identified the boundaries of the current solid platform from which they took small, yet significant steps.

If you ignore known facts, you are fated to wasting your life in a wild goose chase where any crazed concept should be pursued, because nothing's impossible. Why didn't Ford try to design a perpetual motion engine that needed no fuel instead of a V8? Why didn't Einstein spend his life trying to design a working time machine or an anti-gravity device? Because they understood the overwhelming improbability of those things as defined not only by current empirical scientific knowledge, but also by the new rules that were defined by their own forward achievments.

That doesn't even address the issue that, as an audio engineer, my job is not to defy the rules of physics and try to break functioning paradigms. My job is to record music. There are already established physics laws that can facilitate my purpose. Why would any audio engineer want to spend his or her time on this planet arguing with established facts that can make the job easier and more efficient?

There's an old saying that's been around for a long time for good reason. "Understand the rules before you break them."
Old 29th January 2013
  #125
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I'll make a few more comments (and enemies! )

1. While an anechoic room sounds intellectually appealing, all that means is that it's going to approach sounding like headphones! Worse, it most cases it will have muddy low frequency early reflections because almost nobody has enough space to match the absorption of the highs with the lows. Many tried this in the 1970s and failed. The lesson to me was that flat early reflections are critical but not much else. JP is absolutely right about the relative importance of first impulse! It's the only thing we confuse with the sound of the speaker. This is why "tuning a room" with EQ using a microphone at the listening position can't possibly work and didn't to the point that many folks working in those rooms grew to trust NS-10s more!

Interestingly that's also how RCA designed tracking rooms in the '40s -60s having tried dead studios in the '30s and found it to not work very well. At Motown I'm told RCA had us measure the reflections to double check that we had constructed their room design properly and achieved flat early reflections.

2. A one year internship assisting top people in an older studio having an excellent reputation ought to be a requirement for anybody claiming to be a studio acoustician. I've tried to work in way too many rooms where the famous designer has clearly never spent any time in one of the world's truly great studios. If everybody posting to this thread were to attend a mastering session at Sterling Sound or Masterdisk in the late '80s, their jaws would drop over how much more than usual they could hear, how small the rooms were and how little acoustical treatment was employed.

3. By far the most important factor I've experienced in monitor speakers has been individual driver matching. This extra labor makes these speakers expensive. Electronic correction doesn't seem to work very well so in most cases the passive versions of monitors sound better to me than active versions. My guess is that this is because driver matching has been more carefully done.

4. I've always gotten better results from sealed speakers than ported and found passive radiators even worse than ported. Room position seems least critical with sealed and I find moving passive radiators designs an inch or two absolutely frightening as is the change in balance at different volume levels. Fletcher-Munson is more than enough of a variable to deal with, thank you!

5. There has not been a lot of well-funded research into studio acoustics beyond that done by Bell Labs in the 1930s, RCA in the '40s and most recently the BBC in the '70s. I'm always very skeptical of "scientific" sounding claims.
Old 29th January 2013 | Show parent
  #126
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson ➡️
I'll make a few more comments (and enemies! )
Thanks!
Please keep making enemies!
A.
Old 29th January 2013 | Show parent
  #127
Lives for gear
 
Nick Morris's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson ➡️
I'll make a few more comments (and enemies! )

1. While an anechoic room sounds intellectually appealing, all that means is that it's going to approach sounding like headphones! Worse, it most cases it will have muddy low frequency early reflections because almost nobody has enough space to match the absorption of the highs with the lows. Many tried this in the 1970s and failed. The lesson to me was that flat early reflections are critical but not much else. JP is absolutely right about the relative importance of first impulse! It's the only thing we confuse with the sound of the speaker. This is why "tuning a room" with EQ using a microphone at the listening position can't possibly work and didn't to the point that many folks working in those rooms grew to trust NS-10s more!

Interestingly that's also how RCA designed tracking rooms in the '40s -60s having tried dead studios in the '30s and found it to not work very well. At Motown I'm told RCA had us measure the reflections to double check that we had constructed their room design properly and achieved flat early reflections.

2. A one year internship assisting top people in an older studio having an excellent reputation ought to be a requirement for anybody claiming to be a studio acoustician. I've tried to work in way too many rooms where the famous designer has clearly never spent any time in one of the world's truly great studios. If everybody posting to this thread were to attend a mastering session at Sterling Sound or Masterdisk in the late '80s, their jaws would drop over how much more than usual they could hear, how small the rooms were and how little acoustical treatment was employed.

3. By far the most important factor I've experienced in monitor speakers has been individual driver matching. This extra labor makes these speakers expensive. Electronic correction doesn't seem to work very well so in most cases the passive versions of monitors sound better to me than active versions. My guess is that this is because driver matching has been more carefully done.

4. I've always gotten better results from sealed speakers than ported and found passive radiators even worse than ported. Room position seems least critical with sealed and I find moving passive radiators designs an inch or two absolutely frightening as is the change in balance at different volume levels. Fletcher-Munson is more than enough of a variable to deal with, thank you!

5. There has not been a lot of well-funded research into studio acoustics beyond that done by Bell Labs in the 1930s, RCA in the '40s and most recently the BBC in the '70s. I'm always very skeptical of "scientific" sounding claims.

When you say early reflections, I get the impression that you mean earlier than those terminating the ISD gap in RFZ designs. Flat or not, these reflections are what cause problems.

Now, if you meant after the ISD, then I am with you. Flat, diffused reflections occurring after the targeted ISD gap are part of the rooms design and successfully treated goals.

Getting some global idea(s) based off of some rooms having very little apparent "treatment" is probably useless.

#'s 3,4 +1
Old 29th January 2013 | Show parent
  #128
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Morris ➡️
... Flat or not, these reflections are what cause problems.
As a practical matter you are never going to eliminate them so flat needs to be the goal.
Old 29th January 2013
  #129
Lives for gear
 
Nick Morris's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson ➡️
As a practical matter you are never going to eliminate them so flat needs to be the goal.
Eliminating them is not the key, it's reducing their energy or volume. Twenty or so decibels lower than the initial impulse should do the trick.
Old 29th January 2013 | Show parent
  #130
Here for the gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey ➡️
Please give some examples of those things that can't be measured, with respect to acoustics. Come to think of it, your acoustics background is.....?
Yo Psycho Monkey

Color, edge diffraction, doppler distortion, enclosure sound(not talking about internal resonance), etc etc. Guess why people don't create amps, pre-amps, speakers, compressors, DACs just based upon pure physics and electronics, and finally have to resort to using the expertise and refined/discerning ears of listening experts ?

Besides I was not referring specifically to acoustics, did I mention acoustics ?

Cheerz mate
Old 29th January 2013 | Show parent
  #131
Here for the gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Morris ➡️
Actually, physics can explain 100% of the story. YOU might not be able to explain it, especially if you avoided going to school and gaining conventional knowledge.
Mate if everything was revolving around pure physics don't you think that the perfect most transparent speakers would have existed yet ?

Can physics explain psychoacoustics ? can physics explain glue in a mix ? can physics explain positive energy in a track ?

Einstein came here and defied all conventional physics by the use of creativity to explain scientific concepts, he himself says:

"Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school."

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. "


The top mixing engineers didn't go to the universities to learn their art, yet thousands of engineers are coming out of school with plenty of conventional education and yet I haven't heard of any which knocks any of the top pros out.

Koenigzegg comes from one man who didn't go to university and didn't learn conventional university physics, yet still he's blowing the whole Bugatti(VW company, Audi, Lambo etc etc) state of the art scientists and scientific facilities in the water .. and creating technologies which even the huge VW german empire consisting of thousands of people, could no think of.


Cheerz guys
Old 29th January 2013 | Show parent
  #132
Gear Addict
 
WasserSpitzer's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson ➡️
I'll make a few more comments (and enemies! )

1. While an anechoic room sounds intellectually appealing, all that means is that it's going to approach sounding like headphones! Worse, it most cases it will have muddy low frequency early reflections because almost nobody has enough space to match the absorption of the highs with the lows. Many tried this in the 1970s and failed. The lesson to me was that flat early reflections are critical but not much else. JP is absolutely right about the relative importance of first impulse! It's the only thing we confuse with the sound of the speaker. This is why "tuning a room" with EQ using a microphone at the listening position can't possibly work and didn't to the point that many folks working in those rooms grew to trust NS-10s more!

Interestingly that's also how RCA designed tracking rooms in the '40s -60s having tried dead studios in the '30s and found it to not work very well. At Motown I'm told RCA had us measure the reflections to double check that we had constructed their room design properly and achieved flat early reflections.

2. A one year internship assisting top people in an older studio having an excellent reputation ought to be a requirement for anybody claiming to be a studio acoustician. I've tried to work in way too many rooms where the famous designer has clearly never spent any time in one of the world's truly great studios. If everybody posting to this thread were to attend a mastering session at Sterling Sound or Masterdisk in the late '80s, their jaws would drop over how much more than usual they could hear, how small the rooms were and how little acoustical treatment was employed.

3. By far the most important factor I've experienced in monitor speakers has been individual driver matching. This extra labor makes these speakers expensive. Electronic correction doesn't seem to work very well so in most cases the passive versions of monitors sound better to me than active versions. My guess is that this is because driver matching has been more carefully done.

4. I've always gotten better results from sealed speakers than ported and found passive radiators even worse than ported. Room position seems least critical with sealed and I find moving passive radiators designs an inch or two absolutely frightening as is the change in balance at different volume levels. Fletcher-Munson is more than enough of a variable to deal with, thank you!

5. There has not been a lot of well-funded research into studio acoustics beyond that done by Bell Labs in the 1930s, RCA in the '40s and most recently the BBC in the '70s. I'm always very skeptical of "scientific" sounding claims.
You`re not making enemys Bob , it`s just a very interesting topic
I think you described it best yourself by describing the way people was dealing with acoustics back in the days . I have no clue about why Sterling sound worked so well back in the 80`s , i`m pretty sure some considerations were taken into constructing the room . It`s very hard to believe they just tossed a pile of gear into the room and started mastering .
I`m pretty sure a guy with your experience can make someting workable in almost any situation . It`s important to understand that people who just got started does not have that experience , a properly treated room will provide them with more confidence as they can trust what they are hearing .

Most recording veterans started out in well a established facility with workable acoustics . This is not the case today and people will have to figure out the monitoring system themselves , imagine that when you have zero experience and nobody looking over your shoulder telling you the good from the bad . This is something many veterans fail to identify . We are not coming from the same place nowadays .
You know for sure you have a bad working environment when all you have to do is to move your head a couple of inches to hear a drastically altered frequnezy response in the low mids bass and sub frequencies .
You have to ask yourself how much music was recorded and mixed in non purpose built rooms back in the days

Cheers
Old 29th January 2013
  #133
Lives for gear
 
Nick Morris's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by WasserSpitzer ➡️
You`re not making enemys Bob , it`s just a very interesting topic
I think you described it best yourself by describing the way people was dealing with acoustics back in the days . I have no clue about why Sterling sound worked so well back in the 80`s , i`m pretty sure some considerations were taken into constructing the room . It`s very hard to believe they just tossed a pile of gear into the room and started mastering .
I`m pretty sure a guy with your experience can make someting workable in almost any situation . It`s important to understand that people who just got started does not have that experience and it a properly treated room will provide them with more confidence as the can trust what they are hearing .

Most recording veterans started out in well a established facility with workable acoustics . This is not the case today and people will have to figure out the monitoring system themselves , imagine that when you have zero experience and nobody looking over your shoulder telling you the good from the bad . This is something many veterans fail to identify . We are not coming from the same place nowadays .
You know for sure you have a bad working environment when all you have to do is to move your head a couple of inches to hear a drastically altered frequnezy response in the low mids bass and sub frequencies .
You have to ask yourself how much music was recorded and mixed in non purpose built rooms back in the days

Cheers
+1
Old 29th January 2013 | Show parent
  #134
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanahu ➡️
Mate if everything was revolving around pure physics don't you think that the perfect most transparent speakers would have existed yet ?
No, it's precisely because of physics and the limitations of construction and current understanding that we *can't* create perfect speakers.

Quote:
Can physics explain psychoacoustics ? can physics explain glue in a mix ? can physics explain positive energy in a track ?
Of course it can. You just have to be able to precisely define your terms.

Quote:
Einstein came here and defied all conventional physics by the use of creativity to explain scientific concepts, he himself says:
That's simply untrue. Einstein was schooled in all the physics knowledge of his day, and developed his theories based on that knowledge. He didn't defy anything, he went deeper into it and learned more to add to our knowledge of the universe around us.

Quote:
The top mixing engineers didn't go to the universities to learn their art, yet thousands of engineers are coming out of school with plenty of conventional education and yet I haven't heard of any which knocks any of the top pros out.
Don't equate study, and knowledge, with skill and application. Whether or not someone knows and understands the theory isn't the single biggest factor in whether or not he can be a good audio mixer.

He will be using those skills intuitively.

Quote:
Koenigzegg comes from one man who didn't go to university and didn't learn conventional university physics, yet still he's blowing the whole Bugatti(VW company, Audi, Lambo etc etc) state of the art scientists and scientific facilities in the water .. and creating technologies which even the huge VW german empire consisting of thousands of people, could no think of.
His being a genius doesn't mean he is not using "conventional physics." You can't *not* use conventional physics. It isn't a set of techniques, it's a way of describing the physical world around us. Every engineer uses modern physics theory in his designs, and the best are able to use their imaginations to apply those physics theories in ways not previously done.
Old 29th January 2013
  #135
Lives for gear
 
Nick Morris's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenchijin2 ➡️
No, it's precisely because of physics and the limitations of construction and current understanding that we *can't* create perfect speakers.


Of course it can. You just have to be able to precisely define your terms.


That's simply untrue. Einstein was schooled in all the physics knowledge of his day, and developed his theories based on that knowledge. He didn't defy anything, he went deeper into it and learned more to add to our knowledge of the universe around us.


Don't equate study, and knowledge, with skill and application. Whether or not someone knows and understands the theory isn't the single biggest factor in whether or not he can be a good audio mixer.

He will be using those skills intuitively.


His being a genius doesn't mean he is not using "conventional physics." You can't *not* use conventional physics. It isn't a set of techniques, it's a way of describing the physical world around us. Every engineer uses modern physics theory in his designs, and the best are able to use their imaginations to apply those physics theories in ways not previously done.
^^^ what he said
Old 29th January 2013 | Show parent
  #136
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Physics is all based on assumption anyway. Our whole absolute science idea is bollocks. Double slit experiment, anyone?
Old 29th January 2013 | Show parent
  #137
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 ➡️
Physics is all based on assumption anyway. Our whole absolute science idea is bollocks. Double slit experiment, anyone?
See, here's yet another shifting goal post- who said "absolute science?" What is that?

Science is a process by which we analyze and understand things. It tells us how and why, based on the best observable data we can find. "Physics" is not based on "an assumption." It's based on a series of observations and experiments that reveal tendencies of the material world. The entire reason it exists is because we are surrounded by a great many mysteries. Science is how we attempt to solve those mysteries. It is not some monolithic answer. It is a process.

Young's experiment is a perfect example. It showed us that early assumptions about the strict separation of matter and energy were flawed. Those assumptions were based on the best observations of the time. New understandings are constantly changing assumptions, and therefore scientific knowledge is a dynamic, changing body of work.

Young's experiments WERE SCIENCE. The only reason we came to new understanding of the wave like behavior of particles is THROUGH SCIENCE. It's the only valid way we have of de-mystifying the world around us.
Old 29th January 2013 | Show parent
  #138
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
lol.....just threw that in to liven it up a it. Physics IS based on assumption, as is most other stuff in our reality. Check out Tom Campbell's Calgary University speech. He'll explain it to you. But this here discussion is within the goalposts of this assumption based reality, so I will pull out and let you get back to it.
Old 29th January 2013 | Show parent
  #139
Gear Guru
 
kennybro's Avatar
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Some people survive by the sustenance of mystery, as de-mystification removes too many mythological comfort zones. Acceptance of science comes with the responsibility of having to validate declarations, yet declaring that nothing can be explained allows the freedom of having to explain nothing.
Old 29th January 2013 | Show parent
  #140
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennybro ➡️
Some people survive by the sustenance of mystery, as de-mystification removes too many mythological comfort zones. Acceptance of science comes with the responsibility of having to validate declarations, yet declaring that nothing can be explained allows the freedom of having to explain nothing.
You don't know Tom Campbell, do you? This is de-mystification at its best, my man.

https://www.my-big-toe.com/
Old 29th January 2013
  #141
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Once you've spent time in a really good room, you learn to identify others. My reference was the studio RCA designed for Motown. There was a pizza joint in San Francisco I absolutely knew would make a great studio from what speech, footsteps and clattering dishes sounded like. People hoping to do recording really need to at least book some time in a top studio for the experience.

In the old days you started with what you believed to be a workable room and went from there. It was never throwing gear in a random room and making it work. I think the biggest problem with acoustical treatment is trying to make a room sound like something it isn't. Our world is strewn with modern glass-walled concert halls that are acoustical train wrecks because of misguided attempts to do this.
Old 29th January 2013 | Show parent
  #142
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson ➡️
Once you've spent time in a really good room, you learn to identify others. My reference was the studio RCA designed for Motown. There was a pizza joint in San Francisco I absolutely knew would make a great studio from what speech, footsteps and clattering dishes sounded like.
Love it.
Old 29th January 2013 | Show parent
  #143
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanahu ➡️
Yo Psycho Monkey

Color, edge diffraction, doppler distortion, enclosure sound(not talking about internal resonance), etc etc. Guess why people don't create amps, pre-amps, speakers, compressors, DACs just based upon pure physics and electronics, and finally have to resort to using the expertise and refined/discerning ears of listening experts ?

Besides I was not referring specifically to acoustics, did I mention acoustics ?

Cheerz mate
If you notice, the thread IS specifically about acoustics.

If you weren't talking about acoustics, please start your own thread about whatever it is you were talking about, and don't derail this one!

FYI I never said listening wasn't important....
Old 29th January 2013 | Show parent
  #144
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanahu ➡️
Can physics explain psychoacoustics ? can physics explain glue in a mix ? can physics explain positive energy in a track ?
Yes Yes and how would it?


Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanahu ➡️
Einstein came here and defied all conventional physics by the use of creativity to explain scientific concepts, he himself says:

"Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school."
Einstein was not the only person working in this area. He most certainly did not defy conventional physics - he contributed towards the movement which was unsatisfied by the gravitational effects within Newtonian physics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanahu ➡️

The top mixing engineers didn't go to the universities to learn their art, yet thousands of engineers are coming out of school with plenty of conventional education and yet I haven't heard of any which knocks any of the top pros out.
You don't need to be bright to mix - it's a subjective field completely based on taste and experience. There is no conventional education in sound engineering - just wasting peoples time!! heh

Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanahu ➡️
Koenigzegg comes from one man who didn't go to university and didn't learn conventional university physics, yet still he's blowing the whole Bugatti(VW company, Audi, Lambo etc etc) state of the art scientists and scientific facilities in the water .. and creating technologies which even the huge VW german empire consisting of thousands of people, could no think of.
Eh? David Crafoord did the design work for Koenigzegg. Right - yes back on topic though ... sorry team !!
Old 29th January 2013 | Show parent
  #145
Gear Nut
 
hans_beiger's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson ➡️
Once you've spent time in a really good room, you learn to identify others. My reference was the studio RCA designed for Motown. There was a pizza joint in San Francisco I absolutely knew would make a great studio from what speech, footsteps and clattering dishes sounded like. People hoping to do recording really need to at least book some time in a top studio for the experience.
When you come to Germany, please make sure that we meet, I would be glad to have you at my place to share some of life's best brews. But back to the conversation, thank you for speaking my mind.
Old 29th January 2013 | Show parent
  #146
Gear Nut
 
hans_beiger's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey ➡️
If you notice, the thread IS specifically about acoustics.
Sorry to sound nasty but I did create the thread with an optic to talk about the science of high quality speakers as well, and which is more essential, speaker or acoustics.
Old 29th January 2013 | Show parent
  #147
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Its a good point !!! hahaha
Old 30th January 2013
  #148
Lives for gear
 
AlexK's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
One thing the guys who badger on about acoustic treatment never really seem to mention is off-axis response. When considering overall tonal balance (as in, measured amplitude vs frequency response at the listening position), it is essential that the sound coming back from the room is 'flat', but you also need to assume that the sound being fired into the room is 'flat'.

While most studio monitors measure (near as damnit) flat when the measurement is taken on-axis, most here would be amazed at how poor the off-axis response of almost every 2-way studio monitor out there is, particularly in the upper-midband.

It's not uncommon to find ±15dB variations when comparing on and off-axis frequency responses above ~500Hz (it is worth noting that all speakers will transition to an 'omnidirectional' radiator at frequencies where there wavelengths are larger than the speaker baffles, above this 'transitional' frequency, a well-designed speaker should get quieter consistently across it's bandwidth as you move-off axis. The truth is that many speakers get quieter in the upper-mids and extreme high frequencies far more quickly than they should.

While the room is the most difficult, and expensive part to get right, and a result is most commonly the weak-link, it is not the most important consideration, as every component is equally as important as the other. If you get one part of your monitoring setup wrong then you're screwed from the outset.

Also, the distortions caused by bad room acoustics are quite different to those caused by bad speaker design. In fact I would argue that some of those caused by bad speaker and electronic design are more unpleasant (or should I say, unnatural to the ear?) than those caused by bad acoustics.

Also +1 to what Bob Olhsson was saying above about sealed speakers and placement - I cannot explain it, and I have seen nobody else manage to explain it, but I have always found that sealed speakers are much less sensitive to room-placement than other designs...


EDIT: to answer the OP's question, I use and love ATC speakers, but Lipinski, Dunlavy, ProAc, some Harbeths and Klein + Hummels are also very good although not always my cup of tea. I've never seen the whole B&W thing personally, I've even owned a number of them and just don't get it...
Old 30th January 2013
  #149
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by hans_beiger ➡️
Sorry to sound nasty but I did create the thread with an optic to talk about the science of high quality speakers as well, and which is more essential, speaker or acoustics.
You don't sound nasty at all...very polite by comparison to some!

Doesn't really alter my comments above though - when a discussion is about acoustics (as it was at that point), jumping in with a metaphysical aside then claiming you we're talking about something different to everyone else is still derailment!
Old 30th January 2013
  #150
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
The thing about science is that it is always just a model that we test against experience.

I'm thankful to my 10th grade chemistry teacher who wanted us to never forget that we were only talking about ever evolving and hopefully improving models and that we should never worship science as ultimate reality. He'd seen the model shattered far too many times in his life. My daughter is building climate models using supercomputers. There aren't words for how proud I am of her. We need lots more women in both science and recording! So much talent going to waste.
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 698 views: 245941
Avatar for EffinPoop
EffinPoop 3 weeks ago
replies: 64 views: 15177
Avatar for akashpmp
akashpmp 22nd March 2021
replies: 3964 views: 1130291
Avatar for ashmundo
ashmundo 1 week ago
replies: 186 views: 27225
Avatar for V.t
V.t 28th October 2018
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump