Quantcast
Is my room big enough for a diffusor? - Page 4 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Is my room big enough for a diffusor?
Old 31st December 2014 | Show parent
  #91
Gear Addict
 
Bobecca's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northward ➡️
I'm all about cheap shots and the whole world is against SMT & you.

You wanted references?

Carlile S, Hyams S, Delaney S (2001) Systematic distortions of auditory space perception following prolonged exposure to broadband noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 110.

Kashino M (1998) Adaptation in sound localization revealed by auditory aftereffects. In: 11th International Symposium on Hearing.

Kashino M, Nishida Sy (1998) Adaptation in the processing of interaural time differences revealed by the auditory localization aftereffect. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 103.

Kop?o N, Ler A, Shinn-Cunningham BG (2001) Effect of auditory cuing on azimuthal localization accuracy. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

Middlebrooks JC, Green DM (1991) Sound localization by human listeners. Annual Review of Psychology 42.

Sach AJ, Hill NI, Bailey PJ (2000) Auditory spatial attention using interaural time differences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26.

Shinn-Cunningham BG (2001) Models of plasticity in spatial auditory processing. Audiology and Neuro-otology 6.

Shinn-Cunningham BG, Desloge JG, Kop?o N (2001) Empirical and modeled acoustic transfer functions in a simple room: Effects of distance and direction. In: IEEE Workshop on Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics. New Pfalz, New York.

Spence CJ, Driver J (1994) Covert spatial orienting in audition: Exogenous and endogenous mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 20.

J. Sandvad, Auditory perception of reverberant surroundings, Journal of the coustical Society of America 105(2) Pt. 2, 1193 (paper 3pSP3) 1999

R. McGrath, T. Waldmann and M. Fernström, Listening to rooms and objects, roc.16th Audio Engineering Society Int. Conf., Rovaniemi, Finland, 1996

D.H. Mershon, W.L. Ballenger, A.D. Little, P.L. McMurtry and J.L. Buchanan, ffects of Room Reflectance and Background Noise on Perceived Auditory distance, Perception 18, 403-416, 1989

S. Hameed, J. Pakarinen, K. Valde and V. Pulkki, Psychoacoustic cues in room size perception, Proc. 116th Audio Engineering Society Convention, Berlin, Germany, 2004

W.S. Torgerson, Theory and Methods of Scaling, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1962

D. Cabrera and D. Gilfillan, Auditory distance perception of speech in the presence of noise, Proc. Int. Conf. Auditory Display, Kyoto, Japan, 2002

A.H. Marshall and J.R. Hyde, Some preliminary acoustical considerations in the design for the proposed Wellington (New Zealand) town hall, Journal of Sound and Vibration 63(2), 1979

D. Cabrera, A. Nguyen and Y.-J. Choi, Auditory versus visual spatial impression: a study of two auditoria, Proc. Int. Conf. Auditory Display, Sydney, Australia, 2004

P. Martignon, A. Azzali, D. Cabrera, A. Capra and A. Farina, Reproduction of auditorium spatial impression with binaural and stereophonic sound systems, Proc. 118th Audio Engineering Society Convention, Barcelona, Spain, 2005

Perris, E., & Bullinger, A. (1991). Infant's perception of auditory Space. Developmental Psychology, 27.

Edwards, A. S. (1955). Accuracy of auditory depth perception. Journal of General Psychology, 52.

Fletcher, H., & Munson, W. A. (1933). Loudness, its definition, measurement, and calculation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 5.

Gamble, E. A. (1909). Intensity as a criterion in estimating the distance of sounds. Psychological Review, 16.

Gardner, M. B. (1968). Proximity image effect in sound localization. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 43.

Gardner, M. B. (1969). Distance estimation of 0 degrees or apparent 0 degree-oriented speech signals in anechoic space. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 45.

Gogel, W. C. (1976). An indirect method of measuring perceived distance from familiar size. Perception and Psychophysics, 20.

Gogel, W. C. (1990). A theory of phenomenal geometry and its applications. Perception and Psychophysics, 48.

Greene, D. C. (1968). Comment on perception of the range of a sound-source of unknown strength. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 44.

Guski, R. (1990). Auditory localization: Effects of reflecting surfaces. Perception, 19.

Guski, R. (1992). Acoustic tau: An easy analogue to visual tau? Ecological Psychology, 4.

Hartley, R. V. L., & Fry, T. C. (1921). The binaural location of pure tones. Physical Review.

Hartmann, W. M., & Wittenberg, A. (1996). On the externalization of sound images. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99.

Hirsch, H. R. (1968). Perception of the range of a sound source of unknown strength. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 43.

Holt, R. E., & Thurlow, W. R. (1969). Subject orientation and judgment of distance of a sound source. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 46.

Ingard, K. U. (1953). A review of the influence of meteorological conditions on sound propagation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25.

Lambert, R. M. (1974). Dynamic theory of sound-source localization. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 56.

Laws, P. (1972). Zum Problem des Entfernungshörens und der Im-Kopf-Lokalisiertheit von Hörereignissen [On the problem of distance hearing and the localization of auditory events inside the head]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Technische Hochschule, Aachen.

Blauert, J. (1983). Spatial Hearing . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Litovsky, R. Y., & Clifton, R. K. (1992). Use of sound-pressure level in auditory distance discrimination by 6-month-old infants and adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 92.

Little, A. D., Mershon, D. H., & Cox, P. H. (1992). Spectral content as a cue to perceived auditory distance. Perception, 21.

Loomis, J. M. (1995). Some research issues in spatial hearing. Proceedings of the ASSP (IEEE) Workshop on Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics. New York: IEEE Press.

Loomis, J. M., Hebert, C., & Cicinelli, J. G. (1990). Active localization of virtual sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88.

Lounsbury, B. F., & Butler, R. A. (1979). Estimation of distances of recorded sounds presented through headphones. Scandinavian Audiology, 8.

McGregor, P., Horn, A. G., & Todd, M. A. (1985). Are familiar sounds ranged more accurately? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61.

Mershon, D. H., & King, E. (1975). Intensity and reverberation as factors in the auditory perception of egocentric distance. Perception and Psychophysics, 18.

Mershon, D. H., & Bowers, J. N. (1979). Absolute and relative cues for the auditory perception of egocentric distance. Perception, 8.

Mershon, D. H., Desaulniers, D. H., Amerson, T. L., & Kiefer, S. A. (1980). Visual capture in auditory distance perception: Proximity image effect reconsidered. Journal of Auditory Research, 20.

Mershon, D. H., Ballenger, W. L., Little, A. D., McMurtry, P. L., & Buchanan, J. L. (1989). Effects of room reflectance and background noise on perceived auditory distance. Perception, 18.

Mershon, D. H., & Hutson, W. E. (1991). Toward the indirect measurement of perceived auditory distance. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 29.

Middlebrooks, J. C., & Green, D. M. (1991). Sound localization by human listeners. Annual Review of Psychology, 42.

Miller, J. A. (1947). Sensitivity to changes in the intensity of white noise and its relation to masking and loudness. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

Molino, J. (1973). Perceiving the range of a sound source when the direction is known . Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

Morse, P. M., & Ingard, K. U. (1968). Theoretical acoustics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nielsen, S. H. (1991). Distance perception in hearing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Aalborg University, Denmark.

Nielsen, S. H. (1993). Auditory distance perception in different rooms. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.

Petersen, J. (1990). Estimation of loudness and apparent distance of pure tones in a free field. Acustica.

Rabinovich, A. V. (1936). The effect of distance in the broadcasting studio. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

Riesz, R. R. (1928). Differential intensity sensitivity of the ear for pure tones. Physical Review.

Rosenblum, L. D., Wuestefeld, A. P., & Saldana, H. M. (1993). Auditory looming perception: Influences on anticipatory judgments. Perception.

Schiff, W., & Oldak, R. (1990). Accuracy of judging time to arrival: Effects of modality, trajectory, and gender. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance.

Schroeder, M. R., & Logan, B. F. (1961). `Colorless' artificial reverberation. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.

Shaw, B. K., McGowen, R. S., & Turvey, M. T. (1991). An acoustic variable specifying time-to-contact. Ecological Psychology.

Sheeline, C. W. (1983). An investigation of the effects of direct and reverberant signal interaction on auditory distance perception. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.

Shutt, C. E. (1898). Experiments in judging the distance of sound. Kansas University Quarterly.

Simpson, W. E., & Stanton, L. D. (1973). Head movement does not facilitate perception of the distance of a source of sound. American Journal of Psychology.

Starch, D., & Crawford, A. L. (1909). The perception of the distance of sound. Psychological Review. Steinberg, J. C., & Snow, W. B. (1934).

Physical factors in auditory perspective. Bell System Technical Journal. Stevens, S. S. (1955).

The measurement of loudness. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. Stevens, S. S., & Guirao, M. (1962). Loudness, reciprocality, and partition scales. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

Strybel, T. Z., & Perrott, D. R. (1984). Discrimination of relative distance in the auditory modality: The success and failure of the loudness discrimination hypothesis. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. Thompson, S. P. (1892).

On the function of the two ears in the perception of space. Philosophical Magazine (5th Series). Wagenaars, W. M. (1990).

Localization of sound in a room with reflecting walls. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. Warren, R. M. (1962). Are loudness judgments based on distance estimates? Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

Warren, R. M. (1968). Vocal compensation for change in distance. Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of Acoustics (Tokyo). Warren, R. M. (1977).

Subjective loudness and its physical correlate. Acustica. Warren, R. M., Sersen, E. A., & Pores, E. B. (1958).

A basis for loudness-judgments. American Journal of Psychology, . Wightman, F. L., & Kistler, D. K. (1989).

Headphone simulation of free-field listening II: Psychophysical validation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. Wightman, F. L., & Kistler, D. K. (1993).

Sound localization. In Yost, W. A., Popper, A. N., & Fay, R. R. (Eds.) Human psychophysics. NewYork: Springer-Verlag.



Let me know when you're done with this first batch.

Kind regards,
Can you proof to me that your room design is truly folowing any of the mentioned references? And I do mean a proof that can be tied togheter with your room design.

Please do this because I am intrested in how your design is following the latest theories and well established reasearch. Measurements are welcome around here!
Old 31st December 2014 | Show parent
  #92
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobecca ➡️
Can you proof to me that your room design is truly folowing any of the mentioned references? And I do mean a proof that can be tied togheter with your room design.

Please do this because I am intrested in how your design is following the latest theories and well established reasearch. Measurements are welcome around here!
Let me recap your demand here, for the sake of clarity: you ask me to give you a "proof" that our design is truly following any of the references listed, while you have yourself read none of them, have no apparent knowledge in the field being discussed and you sound like you're not really interested in investing any time in learning anything anyway. You're only here to win an argument whose outcome is already decided in your head - and maybe try to convince yourself that SMT still has some form of credibility.

You have nothing substantial to bring to the table, as far as I know. Can this even be considered a discussion? How will you be able to evaluate, validate or refute any of the information extracted from the documents or any of my arguments?

I propose you do a bit of homework first. Reading even a few of the documents and making a small and honest intellectual effort will show you there is a clear correlation. I won't even have to show you. You will have the "proof" right in front of your nose.

Some of the questions that were asked when developing the system were:

- what is a "neutral" acoustic environment for humans
- what is a "natural" acoustic environment for humans
- are they the same thing?

- what effects has the environment on the way we treat auditory stimuli / hear and what are the underlying psychoacoustic processes that can currently be identified?

The answers to these questions provided the framework for the creation of the self-noise response of the FTB Control Rooms. The "engineer to room response".

The other aspect of the design, the "speaker to room response" was more the result of a study of current room acoustics and design techniques - although there was a clear input of data sourced in other fields, mainly psychoacoustics.

The FTB original study where all the processes and conclusions are found is about 180 pages long, with another 240 pages of annexes - mostly extracts of third parties papers and Thesis. Obviously this paper is not available to the public. But you don't need it to have your "proof", that's the beauty of this discussion.

If you want to see ETC responses etc, sure. I've in fact already posted a few, on our Facebook page I think. But that's no proof of anything in itself. It's just a description of the speaker to engineer response.

Have a nice read,
Old 31st December 2014 | Show parent
  #93
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rod Gervais ➡️
Thomas,

There is another side to this as well....... and that is that there is a world of difference between a studio design firm and a company that produces stand alone products meant to be sold to the general public.......

This has been discussed in some great depth with Bobecca (and others who carry the SMT flag.) although they never seem to get it.

There is a very valid reason that companies producing stand alone products take them to labs and have them tested (and report the results to the general public), and there are just as many reasons that some companies do not.

Those that do present an opportunity for the folks they are trying to sell to compare their apples against other firm's apples......

Those who do not generally take that approach because they are pretty aware that once folks got a look at the results (their products produced via lab tests) they would find it hard to justify spending the huge amounts of money they charge for their "special room treatments" over the results they could get with other products inside of the same space.

The fact is that any room your firm designs is (acoustically) the sum total of the entire room - the outcome acoustically cannot be attributed to any single component within the space........ but then again - you are not in the business of selling parts and pieces to folks around the world to install in their living rooms...... if you were I have no doubt you would do exactly the same as every other reputable firm in that business and have your stand alone room treatments tested.

Rod
I agree, and we know first hand how much these test cycles cost to the companies providing these products. It's a big effort and it should be acknowledged.
Old 31st December 2014 | Show parent
  #94
Lives for gear
 
Mctwins's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Show some measurements for crying out loud

Happy New Year
Old 31st December 2014 | Show parent
  #95
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mctwins ➡️
Show some measurements for crying out loud
https://gearspace.com/board/9641454-post50.html

https://gearspace.com/board/9899756-post22.html

https://gearspace.com/board/9996563-post32.html
Old 31st December 2014 | Show parent
  #96
Lives for gear
 
Rod Gervais's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mctwins ➡️
Show some measurements for crying out loud

Happy New Year
"

Mctwins,

A very happy New Year to you sir (and to all the rest of the folks here as well)

I really cannot see why it is that you (and others) can't grasp a simple concept that relates to the differences between a company selling stand alone acoustic products on the street to anyone who might be in the market to buy it....... and companies who design entire spaces/facilities - designs which are holistic in nature when all is said and done.

There are a number of well recognized acoustic designers in the world, and the folks who hire them to design their spaces do so because they want what the designers bring to the table.

They love the rooms these folks have designed from both the perspective of acoustics and the artistic look/feel of those spaces. Thus they gravitate to one or another based on both need and their desires/personal preferences.

The designer then enters into a contract with them to produce a studio (or single room for that matter) that will meet their needs - hence a performance based result.

If the designer meets those goals (which is evidenced by not only the satisfaction of the folks footing the bill to build the space - but ALSO (in a recording studio) by the fact that people flock to the studio to record - and speak highly of it after doing so) then the design was a success.....

The designer owes nothing to the general public in the way of proving the worth of their designs. Their designs stand on their own merits.

I know (for a fact) that firms like Northward are designing excellent spaces (along with a whole host of others whom I am not going to bother naming simply for the sake of effort on my part) because of those in the industry who sing his praises.

It's really just that simple - every job he does where excellence is the outcome proves his worth (and therefor the worth of his design approach)

And when folks are spending the kind of money they spend to build these facilities they would be screaming for his head if those spaces did not fit either their needs or their expectations.

Now - if Matts was only in the business of designing spaces - and was not selling stand alone product to the general public - we would not be having this conversation. It would not matter to me (not even in the least) how he went about making his clients happy - if his clients were happy then he delivered.


BUT
(big but there) he is not just in the business of designing spaces - he also sells individual products on the street to any and everyone who might be looking to treat a room in their home...

It is there where I have an issue with him not putting the data on what his product can/cannot do in clear sight for all to see........

And it is only there.

I realize you will never "get this", that because you could not figure out a way to make it from A to B in your space other than what you have done. However your "not getting it" doesn't change the facts.

Rod
Old 31st December 2014
  #97
Lives for gear
 
kasmira's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobecca ➡️
Can you proof to me that your room design is truly folowing any of the mentioned references? And I do mean a proof that can be tied togheter with your room design.

Please do this because I am intrested in how your design is following the latest theories and well established reasearch. Measurements are welcome around here!
If you haven't read the aforementioned papers, then how would you have any idea whether he was following what is outlined in them? You wouldn't. That's like you asking me to prove that f(x) = x^2 is a continuous function on the real numbers, when you don't know analysis...the entire exercise is futile.

In either case his designs are independent of his claim on the falsifiability of SMT claims, and your changing the subject to his designs (clearly not the subject of debate) only shows your own inability to properly defend your statements. Which is not entirely a fault of yours; if SMT published test data, then you would be able to back up your statements. Unfortunately he hasn't, and though you've had good experiences the only evidence you have is anecdotal, and that is indeed very weak evidence to present to people who work in a scientific field. On the other hand, the current body of research in acoustics goes against SMT claims with his Wings. Note that this does not mean that the Wings cannot work: if Matts developed theory for the devices and published extensive testing to show the efficacy within the bounds of the theory and how it fits in with current acoustic knowledge, it would be able to be discussed. However that hasn't happened, so the only accurate thing that anyone - including Matts himself - can say given the current state of available information is, "The Wings appear to work on some principal that is not known to the current body of acoustic research and seem to be pleasing to a few people's ears."
Old 31st December 2014 | Show parent
  #98
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mctwins ➡️
Show some measurements for crying out loud

Happy New Year
There, there. I'm on holiday this week.

Speaker to Room is the response the engineer hears when playing back music. It represents the influence of the room on the speaker signal. So how much coloration the room creates within that relationship. In all our cases, the response is quasi anechoic.

Engineer to room is how the room behaves when self noises are emitted by the engineer. So how the room is perceived by the engineer when no music is being played. In all our cases, they are far from dead. Although, these are their broadband behaviour shown on the graphs. Self noises are by nature band limited, mostly HF and MF - voice range etc. When band limited these ETC will look different (still with the environmental ER cues, but overall a lot shorter). I am not showing the band limited version though, as it shows the cues too clearly and I am not willing to show that publicly.

-Northward Control room has a 56m² inner shell and 42m² usable net/visible surface. ATC 300 A SL Speakers, in wall.

-"Mid sized control room" has a 42m² inner shell and a 30m² usable/visible net surface. ATC 110 A SL Speakers, in wall.

-"Small control room" has a 30m² inner shell and a 17m² usable/visible net surface. ATC 50 A SL speakers, in wall.

Except for our show-room @ Northward, I cannot name the 2 other studios as I haven't asked the clients if it was okay to publish this data.

These are measurements of empty rooms (no furniture, no console) and thus show a heavy floor effect - which is the single ER created by sound bouncing off the floor like it would bounce off an untreated wall or ceiling. This is usually tamed by furniture / consoles / equipment. In the 2 smaller rooms speakers have their acoustic axis (mid range dome) at 1270mm height. At Northward Studios, they are higher and tilted.

ETC duration is related to room size. This is normal as the bigger the room, the longer sound has to travel to reach the treatment/shell.

For "small control rooms", we aim at an ETC dropping off 60dB broadband in around 80ms.
For "mid sized control rooms", we aim at an ETC dropping off 60dB broadband in around 100-120ms.
For "large control rooms" , we aim at an ETC dropping off 60dB broadband in around 150ms.

BTW, as a reminder: an ETC of an empty room without floor effect showing up is likely a doctored one. This a good trick to see if the measurement is really done at sweet spot or, for example, pretty close to the speaker to try and produce a better graph to prove a point to your buddies on fora. A professional used to these procedures can see this immediately. I am always extremely cautious of ETCs not showing this constant.

I am looking forward to how you will now misinterpret these graphs and the kind of wild conclusions you will derive from it all.

I expect: "Horrible dead room! My ears, my ears!","Oh my goodness! Clearly porous absorption!" or "I can obviously see it sounds worse than the SMT forest chicken wing system!".

Entertaining! (Just messing with you, don't take this seriously).

Happy new year!
Attached Thumbnails
Is my room big enough for a diffusor?-northward-str.jpg   Is my room big enough for a diffusor?-northward-etr.jpg   Is my room big enough for a diffusor?-small-cr-str.jpg   Is my room big enough for a diffusor?-small-cr-etr.jpg   Is my room big enough for a diffusor?-mid-cr-str.jpg  

Is my room big enough for a diffusor?-mid-cr-etr.jpg  
Old 31st December 2014 | Show parent
  #99
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by kasmira ➡️
In either case his designs are independent of his claim on the falsifiability of SMT claims
Thank you.
Old 2nd January 2015 | Show parent
  #100
Gear Addict
 
Bobecca's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northward ➡️
There, there. I'm on holiday this week.

Speaker to Room is the response the engineer hears when playing back music. It represents the influence of the room on the speaker signal. So how much coloration the room creates within that relationship. In all our cases, the response is quasi anechoic.

Engineer to room is how the room behaves when self noises are emitted by the engineer. So how the room is perceived by the engineer when no music is being played. In all our cases, they are far from dead. Although, these are their broadband behaviour shown on the graphs. Self noises are by nature band limited, mostly HF and MF - voice range etc. When band limited these ETC will look different (still with the environmental ER cues, but overall a lot shorter). I am not showing the band limited version though, as it shows the cues too clearly and I am not willing to show that publicly.

-Northward Control room has a 56m² inner shell and 42m² usable net/visible surface. ATC 300 A SL Speakers, in wall.

-"Mid sized control room" has a 42m² inner shell and a 30m² usable/visible net surface. ATC 110 A SL Speakers, in wall.

-"Small control room" has a 30m² inner shell and a 17m² usable/visible net surface. ATC 50 A SL speakers, in wall.

Except for our show-room @ Northward, I cannot name the 2 other studios as I haven't asked the clients if it was okay to publish this data.

These are measurements of empty rooms (no furniture, no console) and thus show a heavy floor effect - which is the single ER created by sound bouncing off the floor like it would bounce off an untreated wall or ceiling. This is usually tamed by furniture / consoles / equipment. In the 2 smaller rooms speakers have their acoustic axis (mid range dome) at 1270mm height. At Northward Studios, they are higher and tilted.

ETC duration is related to room size. This is normal as the bigger the room, the longer sound has to travel to reach the treatment/shell.

For "small control rooms", we aim at an ETC dropping off 60dB broadband in around 80ms.
For "mid sized control rooms", we aim at an ETC dropping off 60dB broadband in around 100-120ms.
For "large control rooms" , we aim at an ETC dropping off 60dB broadband in around 150ms.

BTW, as a reminder: an ETC of an empty room without floor effect showing up is likely a doctored one. This a good trick to see if the measurement is really done at sweet spot or, for example, pretty close to the speaker to try and produce a better graph to prove a point to your buddies on fora. A professional used to these procedures can see this immediately. I am always extremely cautious of ETCs not showing this constant.

I am looking forward to how you will now misinterpret these graphs and the kind of wild conclusions you will derive from it all.

I expect: "Horrible dead room! My ears, my ears!","Oh my goodness! Clearly porous absorption!" or "I can obviously see it sounds worse than the SMT forest chicken wing system!".

Entertaining! (Just messing with you, don't take this seriously).

Happy new year!
So, is all of the ETC you show here from empty rooms? Just for clarification, can you Label them down a little bit better. I asume that the one with a floor spike is from an empty room. But what with the ETC without floor spike? Are they to be considered treated?

I rather want to see a before and after measurment or rather an after measurement. Take the mid-sized room as it correspond nearly to one of my own room.

Please also show sliced ETC from different freq band, waterfall, T30, freq response and so on. If you want, post the mdat file. Other wise, I cant give you a proper interpretation of your graphs.

One thing I can say is this, empty room or not, that there is a lot of uneveness in your graphs that makes it difficult to seperate them from each other.

Because, we do not want to give you any misinterpretation

Carry on......
Old 2nd January 2015 | Show parent
  #101
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
+1
Old 2nd January 2015 | Show parent
  #102
Lives for gear
 
Rod Gervais's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobecca ➡️
So, is all of the ETC you show here from empty rooms? Just for clarification, can you Label them down a little bit better. I asume that the one with a floor spike is from an empty room. But what with the ETC without floor spike? Are they to be considered treated?
Can you explain to me (exactly) why you would expect to see noticeable evidence of a floor spike when someone is speaking inside of a room?

Quote:
I rather want to see a before and after measurment or rather an after measurement. Take the mid-sized room as it correspond nearly to one of my own room.
I (and other folks here) keep trying to point out to you that you do not have a clue how any of this works....... and you just never get it....

He is not designing spaces on the fly here........

He doesn't say - "OK folks - let's get the drywall finished in here and then we'll test the room so I can figure out what I want to do with it from the perspective of treatments"

The facilities are designed - they are constructed, then they are finished and then whatever testing is going to take place happens.

This is not some room in your home that you decide to turn into a listening space or home theater and you live with whatever hand you've been dealt.

Quote:
Please also show sliced ETC from different freq band, waterfall, T30, freq response and so on. If you want, post the mdat file. Other wise, I cant give you a proper interpretation of your graphs.
Now that's some pretty funny stuff..........

Quote:
One thing I can say is this, empty room or not, that there is a lot of uneveness in your graphs that makes it difficult to seperate them from each other.

Because, we do not want to give you any misinterpretation

Carry on......
This is really just so very sad........ yet funny at the same time.......

Rod
Old 2nd January 2015 | Show parent
  #103
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobecca ➡️
So, is all of the ETC you show here from empty rooms? Just for clarification, can you Label them down a little bit better. I asume that the one with a floor spike is from an empty room. But what with the ETC without floor spike? Are they to be considered treated?

I rather want to see a before and after measurment or rather an after measurement. Take the mid-sized room as it correspond nearly to one of my own room.

Please also show sliced ETC from different freq band, waterfall, T30, freq response and so on. If you want, post the mdat file. Other wise, I cant give you a proper interpretation of your graphs.

One thing I can say is this, empty room or not, that there is a lot of uneveness in your graphs that makes it difficult to seperate them from each other.

Because, we do not want to give you any misinterpretation

Carry on......
And yet, you somehow manage to drain a little more out of the pool.

I can't believe you come up with those questions. Have you read more than the first line (word?) of the post? Do you understand that these graphs are two different perspectives of three different finished control rooms before the furniture or equipment was installed? Have you noticed the time scale of the ETC?

You didn't. You didn't get anything to the SMT post either. There is no point in carrying on.

Either you're the perfect example, Alpha Male of the Dunning-Kruger effect: Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or you're just a troll wasting all our time.

Filtered graph of 63Hz band for the Northward room attached to answer your "unevenness" question. I very much doubt this will compute with you. Though I'm sure other readers will get it.

To all the rest, thanks for the chat. Hats off to Jens, Dan & Rod for all the time they give to this forum.

Back to work...
Attached Thumbnails
Is my room big enough for a diffusor?-northward-str-filtered-63hz.jpg  
Old 2nd January 2015
  #104
Gear Guru
 
Glenn Kuras's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Or you're just a troll wasting all our time.
Sorry to see you got sucked down that rabbit hole.. +1
Old 2nd January 2015 | Show parent
  #105
Gear Guru
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Waste

From 2 days ago.
Quote:
I reckon it best to gloss over, ignore, such distractions. It is wonderful to see contributions here from let's face it, global leaders in the field. Let's use it on the good stuff.
Happy New Year, DD
Old 2nd January 2015 | Show parent
  #106
Lives for gear
 
jim1961's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Thanks Northward.

ETC's of professionally treated rooms are rare. My room (blue graph)(36 sq Mtrs) is about the size of your (red) medium sized room . Ignore the 1/1 125hz legend. This is full range. Not terribly dis-similar, except for the kicker of course.

Yours has a smoother decay. Got me. But the overall energy distribution vs time is about the same.
Attached Thumbnails
Is my room big enough for a diffusor?-northward-mid-sized-42-sq-m.jpg   Is my room big enough for a diffusor?-jim-etc.jpg  
Old 2nd January 2015 | Show parent
  #107
Lives for gear
 
Rod Gervais's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan ➡️
From 2 days ago.


Quote:
I reckon it best to gloss over, ignore, such distractions. It is wonderful to see contributions here from let's face it, global leaders in the field. Let's use it on the good stuff.
Happy New Year, DD
[/QUOTE]

DD,

Understood..... however it is also important to respond to BS posts spreading misinformation in order to try to minimize the potential for folks coming to believe that the misinformation is actually the truth......

Rod
Old 2nd January 2015 | Show parent
  #108
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rod Gervais ➡️
... it is also important to respond to BS posts spreading misinformation in order to try to minimize the potential for folks coming to believe that the misinformation is actually the truth......
+1
Old 2nd January 2015 | Show parent
  #109
Gear Guru
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Good?

Indeed Rod. Luckily here (and usually) Thomas' posts are a good read irrespective of what triggered them. But frequent observers here will know that the Twins are not great at our usual language and are prone to holding the wrong end of the wrong stick when it comes to Acoustics. They are nevertheless widely enthusiastic about (possibly) good sound. Hard to dislike them really. Maybe their presence is somehow Shakespearean......
With no disrespect whatsoever, matts isn't great in our lingo either. Plus as we see he is probably working on incorrect or incomplete theories.
BUT, is a listening room better or worse off with a bunch of VariTunes, well installed and tuned? Doesn't a HH device which is readily tuneable in situ address most of the downsides of HH? I simply haven't bothered to look into any of the other products nor the waffle which is trotted out about them. But looking at the pictures briefly, a thought that comes into my mind is 'this room probably sounds quite good'. I don't want to overstate that, IMO if you put a whole bunch of cardboard boxes into a room it will probably sound infinitely better than empty.
DD
Old 2nd January 2015
  #110
Gear Head
 
🎧 5 years
I wouldn't think in my lifetime that one question could turn into discussion/drama like this - Bobecca . I am far from expert but at least I realise when I need to shut up..

btw: my place acoustics is on hold at the moment due to arrival of a new synth but I hope I can still count on a tip or two when the time comes. quite soon I hope.


fresh, happy and lucky new year to everyone!
Old 2nd January 2015 | Show parent
  #111
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim1961 ➡️
Thanks Northward.

ETC's of professionally treated rooms are rare. My room (blue graph)(36 sq Mtrs) is about the size of your (red) medium sized room . Ignore the 1/1 125hz legend. This is full range. Not terribly dis-similar, except for the kicker of course.

Yours has a smoother decay. Got me. But the overall energy distribution vs time is about the same.
Well done Jim, nice RFZ.

Don't worry about smoother decay. If you're happy with the current imaging, depth and overall response, it doesn't matter. It sometimes can point at a smallish sweet spot (uneven energy distribution) - but it's not a given, far from it. Depends on the overall design etc.

Reality is that almost all the money in the treatment phase of a studio build goes in getting the LF right, so the engineer gets a clear representation of each instrument down there (infra bass vs bass vs kick are well identified, clearly separated for example).

If you're in a house, especially in a house with a wooden structure - North American style (?) with no real need for soundproofing of the room (so much thinner/lighter walls) the advantage is that the deep low end and low end will kind of 'fix itself' a bit.

Enjoy music in there!
Old 2nd January 2015 | Show parent
  #112
Lives for gear
 
jim1961's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northward ➡️
Well done Jim, nice RFZ.

Don't worry about smoother decay. If you're happy with the current imaging, depth and overall response, it doesn't matter. It sometimes can point at a smallish sweet spot (uneven energy distribution) - but it's not a given, far from it. Depends on the overall design etc.

Reality is that almost all the money in the treatment phase of a studio build goes in getting the LF right, so the engineer gets a clear representation of each instrument down there (infra bass vs bass vs kick are well identified, clearly separated for example).

If you're in a house, especially in a house with a wooden structure - North American style (?) with no real need for soundproofing of the room (so much thinner/lighter walls) the advantage is that the deep low end and low end will kind of 'fix itself' a bit.

Enjoy music in there!
Thanks.

My 63hz 1/1 Doesn't approach yours. But this graph I believe is from your larger room. Does your medium sized room 63hz 1/1 look anything like mine?
Attached Thumbnails
Is my room big enough for a diffusor?-northward-63hz-etc.jpg   Is my room big enough for a diffusor?-jim-63.jpg  
Old 2nd January 2015 | Show parent
  #113
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim1961 ➡️
Thanks.

My 63hz 1/1 Doesn't approach yours. But this graph I believe is from your larger room. Does your medium sized room 63hz 1/1 look anything like mine?
Yes it is from the larger CR.

Here is the ETC filtered 63Hz for the medium sized room - 42m² inner shell (where the hard structural & shaped walls are)

It's normal it is shorter than yours. This is a 250.000 USD+ ground up room. You can't reproduce this at home.

What you've achieved is good.
Attached Thumbnails
Is my room big enough for a diffusor?-mid-sized-str-etc-filtered-63hz.jpg  
Old 2nd January 2015
  #114
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
The SMT S-field concept certainly seems to arouse strong feelings here on GearSlutz.
With both negative and possitive comments. Negative comments coming from folks that not have experienced the Wing effect and the positive comments from them who has actually heard them. Comments similar my own and Wellness etc are common on other forums regarding the Wing effect.

My guess that the strong anti reactions here towards the concept boiles down to that it´s a concept that sticks out and the GS members lack of experince of the SMT S-field. Its well known (in Scandinavia at least) that SMT choose there acousticans they share valid data with. And that is also probably a contributor as well.

You dont have to take anyone's word for anything, but I see no point in trying to write down things you obviously not have tested.

I have a lot of experience of the SMT concept and i have tried to describe my experiences. And so has others done in this thread.

No one is forcing you to try something new, feel free to continue as you always done. As an sound engineer im open for new things and always want to learn more. Things and methods that works for me seems to stick and the ones that dont gets thrown out. But i´m allways open for new ideas and to reconsider my old.
I´ve seen thread after thread here on GS where some of the regulars continues to push for just slabbing as much Sabin absorbers as possible in the rooms and gets a lot of +1 and thumbs up from the rest of the regulars. If someone enters the thread with a diffrent solution or idea they get hackled and attacked from all angles. These threads seems to die and we for "some" reason almost never see any after measurements. The thread starter does as he was told and then comes back for more tips when it did not solve his problems. Just to hear that he have too add more Sabin absorbers. And then mabey if he/she still has the stamina comes back again with a suffocating dead room, still problems in the bass area and then get the tip to add even more Sabin absorbers and put slats on them to get som high end back in the room.


And when we see companies that has been selling Sabin absorbers change there products with slats and membranes and even start looking for other solutions than just porous absortion. That´s a good sign that they are starting to look beyond the dead space philosophy.

Like I said no one is forcing you to change anything in the way you deal with room acoustics. But why not keep on open mind to new ideas and listen to other peoples experinces. We may also like diffrent environments. I for one like cluttered Irish pubs over German naked beer halls cause it´s much easier to have a conversation over the background noise in the irish pub. And of course than in a maddrassed prison cell which I luckily have stayed out from. But i have been in studios that have ”madrassed” walls and ceilings and that was not my cup of tea.

I find to compare the wing effect with a bad RFZ copy a bit strange as its quite the oposite. Introducing more reflection rather than killing them or redirecting them away from the listener. There exist two totally different ways to skin the cat building critical listening rooms.
Art Noxon describe this exellent and as always in a respectfull way here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjjeJzZsP8E


When i presented some measurements from my control room someone in this thread could look at my ETC measurement and from that tell that I´ve used a lot absorption, which I clearly have not done (the concept are outside the sabin box). Someone claiming that Helmholtz traps don´t works as I say. But I have tuned room after room in the same way with good results. The room i showed in this thread is not the first or the only room I have built and I do have tried other methods along the way. I have done lots of experiments with different kinds of Sabin absorbers, various Helmholtz solutions and diffusion. And through that found ways that works for me and that appeals to me sonically. I want rooms that is neutral, airy, detailed, open, tight and even.

My control room fullfill all this demand and my sweet spot is enourmas.
Mixing is more fun and faster for me in a room such as this.


Statements from well known mixers shows that the concept works down to 10m2 so it should be a good option for GS members. Which was the actual topic in this thread ”Is my room big enough for a diffusor”!


Why did i spend so much energy when i could just have used different kind of sabin absobers around the room?!?

Well, cause i like my rooms this way and over using soft absorbers dont work for me in a way that´s pleasing to me.



So did I just go online and bought "snake oil" from the first site i found?!?

No, of course i did not. What made me interested in the SMT concept was that there were new ideas. (New and new, helmholts traps has been along for quite a while). But not hung on chasing sabins and try to translate the large room acoustics onto the small rooms. Not stuck in the box and seemed evolving!



But there´s no lab testing shown in Sabins?!?!

Well, i was not after a single product to kill my early reflections or to place in every corner. I was after a concept, and even if SMT sold me the parts i wanted part by part the also sold me the concept. On SMT´s website i found info about the products operating range.

SMT has provided a lot of resultats from there rooms on different forums, especially in Scandinavia .

And the fact that the Varitune is a reactive module (that fights the reactive problem that strong axielle modes create) and not a Sabin absorber makes a Sabin lab value meaningless.

Even though I was after a concept more than just a single product. I still feel that the products provided by SMT can be purchased product by product. Like the Varitunes for example or a couple of wings. Even a single Varitune can make wonders if placed and tuned correctly. In my spaces i have used several Varitunes. But that fact does not take away the effect that even a single Varitune can accomplish.

Before i decided to "WING" my control room i did several tests. I´ve seen time and time again what the ”wing effect” can do. Cleaning up the spectrum over 200Hz and up. And i always listen aswell as measure. Like i said earlier in this thread when i tried to describe my listening experiences: If i partly place absortion over the wings and there by killing some of the reflections i get from the Wings "The magnifying glass gets less sharp and the magic is gone".

The wings has the opposite effect of that the MP3 has to the original format. Letting me hear more details of the recorded material due to the unmasking effects of the broadbanded dense reflections created by the wings.

More about masking and human auditory system and its limitations here:

Perceptual Audio Demonstrations

Nothing new under the sun! If someone wants to hear better he put his hands to his ear (easily tested on for example a computer fan). He does not try to redirect the incomming sound away from him (RFZ) nor do he run to the next room for a soft pillow.


And some sad news!

I hade to move out from my control room due to a water leakage. :(
Thanks to the Varitune and Wings can be used as a module system i´ve built a new provisionally room with all modules that where not screwed onto walls and ceiling. And from the modules i had in my recording rooms. Again wings at the side reflections evend out the response from about 200hz and up and the rest i tuned with helmholtz traps spread out in the room. This time i did use two absortion panels between the speakers and the front wall. But i placed Goldern Horn panels in front of the panels to get som reflections back. Of course mesured and listening. The room turned out great but dosent have the same magnifying glass effect and sparkle of my control room due to the lack of wings. I had only two Wing-gobos to work with this time. But it´s a temporary solution till I get back in my main control room again. But it shows that a good sounding room in my opinion could be built in a day. This is actually the way SMT show rooms at exhibitions and fairs are constructed. Loose modules stacked and removed the next day. Other manufacturers as tube trapps QSF comes to mind as well other products that can be stacked in such a manner.

When I now have to rebuild some parts of my control room I have thought out some improvements to get it even better. But that has to be shown later!

/DrHans
Old 2nd January 2015
  #115
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Many thanks for your valuable info and interesting diagrams Northward and … wow (!) that is one steep decay for 63 Hz, rouhgly 125 ms / -60 dB. Mine is about 2,6 x longer in a 9 m² smaller room (33 m² / 74 m³ between concrete shell). Interior walls / treatments for me ended up at about 7 kUSD. I don’t think I will spend another 243 kUSD though, ouch ...

ps, sorry to hear your control room went down the drain DrHans.
Attached Thumbnails
Is my room big enough for a diffusor?-filtered-63-hz.jpg  

Last edited by Adhoc; 2nd January 2015 at 11:09 PM.. Reason: added some text
Old 3rd January 2015 | Show parent
  #116
Gear Guru
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Babel

Hi Dr. Hans. I don't know if there is a persistent language problem here. But Art Noxon's video is describing his own particular approach to treatment. i.e. Create a treated 'hut' close to the listener, rather than attempting to treat the whole room.
Acoustically a great idea for a temporary installation, but logistically in terms of using the room space, severe problems. I don't see this as a comparison of 'two ways' or anything like that. It is simply his idea.
More importantly I cannot see how it has any relationship with any other concept here or elsewhere. Although I do recommend it now and again, for rooms which are large where treating the whole space would be too expensive and unnecessary.

There are many people who post their efforts here with genuine enthusiasm and good intent. Your derisory comments about them/us in general is insulting and without any substance. If you have a particular point about a particular case, by all means state it, otherwise you are obviously just ranting in general against people in general.
Quote:
I find to compare the wing effect with a bad RFZ copy a bit strange as its quite the oposite.
Who is comparing what with what where?
Are you actually suggesting FTB is a bad RFZ copy?
That would be just silly and certainly against the rules here.

Please clarify your points. Lets' take it as read that you like SMT products. No more shilling (advertising) please. If you have anything other than that which you think may be of interest let's hear you.

DD
Old 3rd January 2015 | Show parent
  #117
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan ➡️

Who is comparing what with what where?
Are you actually suggesting FTB is a bad RFZ copy?
That would be just silly and certainly against the rules here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northward ➡️
What you're doing is decreasing level of ER and push them in time thus reducing coloration of the original signal – provided your wing system does what you say it does. This is nothing new. It's been around for 60 years+. it's a very poor implementation of a RFZ design.
Old 3rd January 2015 | Show parent
  #118
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adhoc ➡️
Many thanks for your valuable info and interesting diagrams Northward and … wow (!) that is one steep decay for 63 Hz, rouhgly 125 ms / -60 dB. Mine is about 2,6 x longer in a 9 m² smaller room (33 m² / 74 m³ between concrete shell). Interior walls / treatments for me ended up at about 7 kUSD. I don’t think I will spend another 243 kUSD though, ouch ...
Haha! Yes, ouch.

Well, to put things in perspective, not such a big 'ouch' for a pro room in fact. Most ground up pro rooms builds (in a big city) of similar size and similar finish quality will cost you that easily - no matter which Pro Designer designs it.

It's not only treatment. It contains the costs of:

-Design & engineering,
-Speakers,
-Speaker decoupling systems,
-Permits & other admin costs,
-Stability engineer study & report,
-New connection to electricity,
-Full set of new foundations for studio bunker,
-Outer shell work,
-Floating floor on springs,
-Inner shell work,
-All acoustic treatment,
-Acoustic doors,
-Airconditionning work,
-Electrical wiring,
-Finishing (flooring, fabric etc),
-Lounge area with small kitchen + Entrance
Etc.

All that built to the mm by specialized teams.

If a client can come with a space that does not need a lot of the main structural work - so not a full ground up but rather just the control room bunker, then the cost is substantially reduced.
Old 3rd January 2015 | Show parent
  #119
Gear Guru
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Lost

@ Dr. Hans, I see. My apologies I thought it was you who was trying to make a comparison. The Art Noxon thing and language limitations put me off.
Quick question, is the Wings thing to do with redirecting early reflections away from the listening so that they arrive later? If so it does ring a few old bells surely.
DD
Old 3rd January 2015
  #120
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
This is a 15' X 11.5' X 6.7' residential room, with in the ballpark of $500 to $1000 of DIY materials invested. Haven't added up the receipts, but the materials are not spensive. Quite a few hours expended. Would hate to pay a labor bill at my usual hourly rate, on all the hours expended, but has been a fun hobby to experiment with.

Attempting to monkey-see-monkey-do assemble similar settings charts, the unfiltered IR doesn't look too bad.

The 63 Hz filtered doesn't look fabulous. The room gets lots looser below about 100 Hz, and is about as trapped as practical at the moment.

Above 100 Hz it is pretty tight. The freq response is pretty flat down to about 25 Hz, in spite of fairly long decay below 100 Hz.

Fun stuff to play with. Mic is real close to the speakers, but that really is my real listening position, about a meter away from the speakers. Ain't "cheating" to make it look better or whatever.
Attached Thumbnails
Is my room big enough for a diffusor?-unfiltered_ir_01-02-2015.jpg   Is my room big enough for a diffusor?-filteredir_63hz_01-02-2015.jpg  
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 188 views: 48758
Avatar for patrick81
patrick81 1 week ago
replies: 280 views: 54344
Avatar for 807Recordings
807Recordings 31st December 2020
replies: 428 views: 14110
Avatar for grumphh
grumphh 1st October 2016
replies: 386 views: 69978
Avatar for Squeegee 303
Squeegee 303 13th September 2021
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