The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Is my room big enough for a diffusor?
Old 14th January 2015 | Show parent
  #151
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mctwins ➡️
Hmm.... So you are saying, if I understand it correctly, that REW is only for folks that are bulding there own rooms and is not intended for proffessional application. Allthou you write it is used by proffessional. Could you please make up your mind here. Don't understand your point here!

Thomas(Northward) is using REW, so what's the problem.

Don't worry, I will use ARTA's acoustical program in the future.

We use REW, but mostly a professional software called DIRAC by B&K.
Advantage of REW being free is that clients can run their own tests if they want to and we can open the files too, and vice versa. Makes discussion easier.

REW is a very good software especially for a free one, but not up to par with DIRAC in terms of what you can do with it. ARTA is fine too.

Though we are likely moving to IRIS in the coming weeks.

Amazing software: IRIS

Highly recommended.
Old 14th January 2015 | Show parent
  #152
Lives for gear
 
jhbrandt's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Thomas,

Excellent! Marshall Day programs are very thorough. Let me know how this works out for you guys.

I currently only use REW since I do my work remotely. It's easier for us, like you, to have the clients do measurements and then send us the data files.

I'm still sorting through the options for our little testing facility. I would like to be able to do multi-microphone array measurements for diffusor testing, but I don't want to kill the budget with equipment and software like commercial testing labs have to have. But I'm not having the place certified nor will I be doing any testing for hire. It's just for testing various configurations that I'm designing... If you have any suggestions.. or perhaps I should ask Ron Sauro..

Sorry to get off-topic guys...

Cheers,
John
Old 14th January 2015
  #153
Gear Guru
 
Glenn Kuras's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Amazing software: IRIS
Looks pretty freakin nice. Downloading the free trial to check it out. Any idea on the cost of the full package? Can't seem to find that on the website.

Last edited by Glenn Kuras; 14th January 2015 at 02:26 PM..
Old 14th January 2015 | Show parent
  #154
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Kuras ➡️
Looks pretty freakin nice. Downloading the free trial to check it out. Any idea of the cost of the full package? Can't seem to find that on the website.
Did you download the quad-diaphragm mic as well ...
Old 14th January 2015 | Show parent
  #155
Gear Guru
 
Glenn Kuras's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan ➡️
bump.
Old 14th January 2015 | Show parent
  #156
Gear Guru
 
Glenn Kuras's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens Eklund ➡️
Did you download the quad-diaphragm mic as well ...
No but it looks like there is some sample room reading to just look at.

Last edited by Glenn Kuras; 14th January 2015 at 02:51 PM..
Old 14th January 2015 | Show parent
  #157
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Kuras ➡️
No but it looks like there is some sample room reading to just look at. For some reason though the program keeps crashing.
Ok, I might try it also … when I have some spare time ... Yeah, right ...


Would be interesting to know how they can determine the direction of anything but relatively high frequencies considering the minimal spacing of the capsules.

I think I have suggested previously to John (REW), to try and include polar ETC in REW, perhaps by letting the user define how many and in what position, a number of receivers are positioned. That would be a pretty neat.
Old 14th January 2015 | Show parent
  #158
Gear Guru
 
Glenn Kuras's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens Eklund ➡️
Ok, I might try it also … when I have some spare time ... Yeah, right ...


Would be interesting to know how they can determine the direction of anything but relatively high frequencies considering the minimal spacing of the capsules.

I think I have suggested previously to John (REW), to try and include polar ETC in REW, perhaps by letting the user define how many and in what position, a number of receivers are positioned. That would be a pretty neat.
Got it to load. May mess around with it later. I do agree about REW, would be nice.
Old 14th January 2015 | Show parent
  #159
Lives for gear
 
Rod Gervais's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mctwins ➡️
Hmm.... So you are saying, if I understand it correctly, that REW is only for folks that are bulding there own rooms and is not intended for proffessional application. Allthou you write it is used by proffessional. Could you please make up your mind here. Don't understand your point here!

Thomas(Northward) is using REW, so what's the problem.

Don't worry, I will use ARTA's acoustical program in the future.

Wow - unbelievable - you read all of that and then came nowhere near to understanding what I was saying......

Let me try again - perhaps I can help you make it from A to B

REW is an excellent program........ John has done a magnificent job there.....

BUT (big But there so pay close attention or you'll miss it again) - it was NOT written as a commercial program - it's freeware.

It was developed for (note that the words "developed for" do not mean "can or "should only be used by") non-professional folks who want to test their rooms...

If it was a program intended for professionals in the field of acoustics it would be for sale - it would not be given away.......

As such - the help section of the program includes things to look out for that no professional user should ever need to be advised about - although a whole lot of non-professional users absolutely need to be advised about those same issues..

Problems though will stem when the uneducated begin to look at the help section and suddenly beginto think that they know more than the professionals donating their time trying to help them. Your comment to Thomas in that regard being a perfect example in point.

A lot of professionals (even some who try to help people on sites like this) use that program because it provides a means to communicate effectively with those they are trying to help, most of whom only want to get a room so they can use it - and are not interested in spending thousands of dollars buying software that will never be of any use to them once their rooms are finished......

That does not mean (however) that they (referring to the professionals) are using that software when it comes to their projects/designs/clients.

This is not all that different than the fact that a lot of professionals here use Sketchup to examine some 3d designs that folks here come up with for their rooms (because they are doing those designs using that program) - however that does not suggest (not even a little bit) that the professionals are using the same program for their designs......

Perhaps now you can "get it"?

Rod

Last edited by Rod Gervais; 14th January 2015 at 03:13 PM..
Old 14th January 2015 | Show parent
  #160
Gear Guru
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Star

Random points.
Dirac, now part of the Bruel and Kjaer family, has no relationship to Dirac Live or the Dirac enabled Minidsp.com, Emotiva, and Theta Digital boxes.

Although I remain convinced that a zero price is detrimental to the market, in particular to FuzzMeasure and ARTA, and ETF, I strongly commend and thank John Mulcahy for REW. I think it worth noting that things are changing in there all the time. For instance he bought a Mac (not an easy thing for PC people to do! ) and wrote a version of REW which includes a special built in version of Java to eliminate the problems caused by Apple and Java's incompatibilities. I don't see any developers of the so called 'Professional' apps going to such extreme trouble to take care of customers even if they do pay the 2 Grand. I would make that point that one can Donate to REW. Perhaps if us Professionals would actually do that, any 'class' distinction would be entirely obviated.
Might be time to note the Titanic was designed by Pros, the Ark by Amateurs......

FuzzMeasure can generate a Sweep File. This can be sent to clients etc. All they have to do is play it back and record the room response. Return the Wav to Acoustic Central where we can now 'remove' the sweep. This is much easier than having clients fire up REW etc. Having said that I have just achieved client SPL logging of Wind Turbine Noise using a UMIK-1 and REW. 100 Bucks as opposed to the B&K Matron system.

Quad Mics. I have noticed a few of these knocking around. What with 3 D printing and so on....... DIY SoundField Mics.


DD

Last edited by DanDan; 14th January 2015 at 06:47 PM..
Old 14th January 2015 | Show parent
  #161
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens Eklund ➡️
Would be interesting to know how they can determine the direction of anything but relatively high frequencies considering the minimal spacing of the capsules.
Tetrahedron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Interesting idea. There are four faces and four face circles on the circumsphere. Each face's circle on the circumsphere overlap the other circles. Cardioid mics are never sharply delineated, which is the nature of the cardioid shape.

For instance if the -6 dB angle of each cardioid mic follows its circle on the circumsphere, then a signal measured strongest from one mic would be in the direction of that mic. If two mics measure about the same signal amplitude, then the signal direction is centered between two mics.

Relative levels from the other two mics could place the angle somewhere along the midline between the two hottest mics.

Maybe fair directional precision could be wrung from the four recordings.

Cardioids usually have a hot spot at 180 degrees straight back from the front. Maybe the rear hotspot could be designed out, or maybe such backwards reception could be somehow leveraged to supply more information, from four new angles of reception.

Maybe a tetrahedral array of figure 8 mics could be useful. Interesting food for thought.
Old 15th January 2015 | Show parent
  #162
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Really? I would think 4 omnidirectionals is more accurate, since the recording is being filtered for analysis. It's based on time and triangulation, and that would require 4 mics with omnidirectionality for 3d localization. But like Jens said, I also wonder how it works, must be pretty advanced to localize the entire audible spectrum.
Old 15th January 2015 | Show parent
  #163
Gear Guru
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
The Wheel

YOU ARE SURROUNDED
I don't think localisation would make much sense at LF. I have used the SF mic quite a few times. The stereo image and neutral/faithful sound are absolutely stunning.

DD
Old 15th January 2015 | Show parent
  #164
Lives for gear
 
Nordenstam's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusor.com ➡️
SMT policy is to headhunt acousticans or be headhunted for ex industry s-field labs ,total makeover of Sabin listening rooms ,classrooms for children with cochlear implants etc
Wing regards
Matts
From the PDF:
Quote:
The V-Wing was recently chosen from a shoot of internationally sold diffusors.
A test was conducted in a specially built classroom at a school for children with hearing difficulties. The combination of Helmholtz bass absorption created between the modules (V-shape) and the special delay line function was an overwhelming success (this unique feature was also the reason why they were chosen). The predominant opinion was that the test classroom had very good speech intelligibility and clarity.
These are the sort of claims you need to back up.

You can have a near endless amounts of users report this or that and it'll still only be anecdotal reports. Those can of course be interesting, but at the best it's still only a hint that further research is needed to substantiate the claim.

Substantiating claims by referral to science needs heavy duty backup. I believe that's hard to achieve no matter what you do in acoustics. You can refer to as much psychoacoustics as you want and you'll still be referring to weak science, to put it politely.

As far as I can see, there are two ways to prove your claims. Both involve scientific rigour.

If you can set up a decent test with blinds and all, and prove that hearing disabled people have an easier time understanding speech in your room compared to other solutions, you have a strong case. A case for further study. Repeating the success in several trials gives the basis for peer reviewed publication which would be a definite game changer in that field. I write "that field" here, as making things easier to hear for the disabled is quite different from making things easier to hear for the enabled. In other words: audio engineers.

Another way to blind test this is by using audio engineers. This is of course far more interesting for the crowd around here. If you can prove that engineers consistently are able to blind test miniscule differences in sound in your room, differences that can not be blind tested, or tested with a consistently less degree of success, in other rooms, you'll have an equally strong proof of concept.

I urge you to set up such test regimes. I, for one, salute new ways of thinking. It doesn't matter what theory says. If practice trumps theory, theory have to adjust. Since referral to established science doesn't work, practical trials is it. Even if you happen to be confident in the validity of your theories they are obviously not cutting it among your peers.
Old 18th August 2015 | Show parent
  #165
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
Hi Nordenstam!

Glad to read that you have the acoustic spirit to step outside the Sabin box and explore the Wing effect. DrHans came up with the idea to use a second pair of monitors for a simple A/B test. The result with measurments was send to me just before summer holiday:

______________________________________________________________

Listening to and comparing the wing-effect!

Bringing another set of monitors into the control room lets me compare the full wing-effect to a "milder" wing-effect. Due to my second pair of monitors being closer to me compared to the mains which is further away right up against the wings.



None of the pairs measures more than +-3,5 dB accuracy at the listening position from the bottom to the top and the early reflections are attenuated with at least 20 dB. Of course the monitors are of different brands but that´s not the topic here. If i where to switch them the result in difference would have been the same, but off course the opposite. Also this isn't a comparison with a diffused room and an absorbed room. If that would have been the case the difference would have been even greater.

The fact that both pair is in the same room lets me A-B with a switch of a button or in my case a fader. The brain has a very short memory to sounds (at least my has) and we adapt quickly. Switching between the pairs reminds me of a feeling i once got when i compared a vocal mike that i thought sounded good and that i was happy with at the time, with a much more expensive one. Then i heard how muddy my microphone actually was. Meaning the second pair of monitors do sound good but the difference with the pair that has the full blown wing-effect is huge.




First of its two different kinds of listening experience.

My mains literally puts me in the recording room. The ambience of the room where the music where recorded in becomes very pronounced. It´s more like sitting in front of an acoustic concert where the sounds of each musician arrives from a different position of the stage and you forget that the sound is squeezed out from two boxes. Everything is clear and easily spotted (or when mixing placed) in the stereo field. The phantom center is very focused.

When i switch over to my second pair i get instantly pulled out from the recording room and get a moore in your face experience. I´m not longer one with the music. The second thing that strikes me is that the extreme separation now is gone. The soundstage is somehow diffused bit and muddy. Pinpointing each instrument in the soundstage is a lot harder. Yet again this is the benefit off A-B:ing with a switch before you forget or your ears gets used the new sound. Cause its not really that the second pair of monitors are muddy and diffused. But when comparing them going from the mains they are.



Making decisions about ambience when mixing (like working with room mics and applying proper amount of reverb) could fool you with my second pair. But my mains lets nothing through. I have sent back vocal recordings from artists which were recorded in unflattering recording environments. And when the artists can't hear it in there listening environment they have a very hard time addressing the issue.


The dynamic perception between the monitor pairs is quite different.

In my mains i hear all quiet background noises. Every little detail from the singer's mouth or that rattling bracelet she just couldn't sing without. The second pair is more forgiving to background noises and those kind of fine details because they are not so pronounced when listening to them. In my mains quieter sounds aren't masked in the same way due to the greater wing-effect and every nuance becomes clear. That brings another kind of focus and precense to the music and that changes the dynamic perception. For example a computer fan noise in the background that aren't extremely pronounced when listening through my second pair can be overbearing in my mains.

With stereo effects like overdubs the difference also makes a huge difference. Sometimes there are phase issues or just untight recorded materials. Those records are not pleasing in my mains cause those kinds if problems are highlighted and literally jumps out at me. My second pair is much more forgiving again. Not highlighting phase issues and untight recordings in the same way.


I was working on a mix the other day where a lead vocal was backed up with two overdubbed. The goal was to fatten up the lead but still make it sound like one single voice. The overdubs were panned halfway out and the main at dead center. Then the overdubs where brought up to the right level, but now they jumped out just a bit here and there and telling that they where there. By adjusting the attack time off the compressors on the overdub channels they where tucked in nicely. When switching over to my second pair of monitors i could not hear any difference when fine adjusting the attacking time of the compressors, nor could i here that there where actually a problem. So without the wing-effect the problem would have slipped trough.


To me having the proper listening environment is extremely important. I want to spot every flaws in the material im working with. Making great recordings and mixes where i can trust what i hear. A room i can sit and mix in for a whole day and come out with a fresh set of ears and not ear fattiged like in studios where you have to push volume to try to compensate for absorption. Even in my room i find that i want to push the second pair a little more to try to pick up the same details as i do in my mains. And i also find myself leaning in to try to compensate.

So why is this important if i cant here all off those details at home for example. Well first off every system and room highlights different things. That means that when working with sound you must work in a much higher resolution and that your listening chain is accurate and revealing. The higher resolution meaning not just to work in for example 24 bit when ending up in 16 bit. But working in an environment that lets ju hear everything neutral and accurate.The SMT S –field concept lets me have that.



Main



Near:





Main:




Near:


/DrHans – DrHans Studio, Stockholm, Sweden
______________________________________________________________


I will ask DrHans if he is willing/have time to do this demo for genuine interested (like you ) mixers/acousticians. We are also working on a similar set up in Chicago for interested US acousticians/customers.

It took me over one year in the lab to come up with the first wing prototype with a minimum of absorbtion that only uses different long delay lines and it has already paid back big time.



The goal was to get a balanced time spectrum response that enhance and extend the fusion time zone (similar to the forest acoustic) and give the auditory system (with all its limitations ) a timbre match ”second chans” for a neutral, accurate, higher resolution and wider sweetspot experience.

This can be a brain teaser for those have not experienced the wing effect. But the enhanced and extended fusion time zone is the key to ex transform the early reflections in the critical listening room to carry the recording rooms acoustics even if its recorded in the open field.
This is very easy to demo using a small room Wing set up.

If we look at DrHans second set up of monitors and look at the etc measurments its almost spot on Blackbird Studio C (witch RPG named ambechoic design ). Altough the room volume and depth of the modules are much smaller etc.






The two psychoacoustic leading prof Angus and Howard (Acoustics and Psychoacoustics 2012 ) describe the Wing effect spot on as a accepted design for critical mixrooms here:




To stop some off the active members here at GS from patronizing over "missing" lab reports, we can look at why I did post: https://gearspace.com/board/8800436-post156.html
One of the reason was to show how blunt normal RT measurments as alot of important psychoacoustic information from the early part of the decay are missing* Ex two rooms with different room dimensions and the same volume and T30, often have two different psychoacoustic experients .The measurments (done with a dodec from 200Hz ) also show the unique broadbanded* performance with a minimum absorbtion* the Wings performe in the nearfield (no loobing issues ) This leads us to the S -field with the same psychoacoustic dna in all 3 room sizes. This is just one example what kind of lab result Im happy to share with acousticans thats not stuck in the Sabin box.
An important free Wing lunch comes from the dense set of broadband reflections that psychoacoustic filling the spectral hole around 2kHz (head shadowing) This dip, not seen by the mike, is a problem where special care is taken to attenaute early reflections.
An interesting side note is that many well known acousticians trained by Don Davis are after being curious about the wings now using them in their daily work.

To keep up with the Wing effect the S-field is backed up by the tunable (15-125hz) Varitune family. As axiell modes are an amplitude problem and not an energy problem (as the widespread misconception here at GS says). The modules barely tuch the active wave as they act as reactive phase shifters on the reactive standing wave (90 degrees out of phase with the active wave). Absorbtion lab test of the Varitune family is therefore of no use as the distribution of the resonances (The Robin Hood effect) work outside the Sabin box. This over 2000 years ancient Greech idea distribute the strong room resonances with the result of a more even set of resonaces that lower the peaks and fill the dips without barely tuching the active wave. No drc or any kind of Sabin absorber can do the same.Room tuning is nothing one learn overnight. But its energy and space saving as its possible to tune very small rooms and it only take between 10- 20 % of the room volume, whatever room size.



How to treat nulls
How to treat nulls 2

The auditory evolution that was taken place in the reveberant forest* enhanced and delayed the fusion zone (similar the Wing modules) to better hear the enemy sneaking up on us at long (100-200 m) distance. So the SMT pdf rest on well known psychoacoustic ground stones I mentioned in this post: https://gearspace.com/board/10717004-post146.html

The magic and relaxing forest acoustic (T30= 0,4-2 s) is the reason why Sweden have a long tradition to move the whole orchestra into an opening in the forest and even make recordings. Sweden are covered with almost 60 % forest = over 30 millions football fields.

The peers you refere to try to clip the wings of the concept without experients the wings so they obviously have a agenda with posts like:
https://gearspace.com/board/10717492-post148.html
Highfived Nortwards longshot of wings create a RFZ, the forest trunks dont contribute to a revereberant sound field, Wings acting as absorbers, etc.

So for the balance and to end this rubbish the proof is as always ”in eating the pudding”. Thanks to myself and wellknown acousticans, here is a taste of some of them:

36 S wings create a neutral and accurate S-field for a Foley Studio Gothenburg (Sweden).

The first S-field Industri Lab for evaluate truck cabin acoustics.
The game changing etc can been seen in DrHans table under S-field (130 wings installed).





Yamaha AFC3 system backed up with 160 S wings in orchestra rehearsel rooms ( Stockholm and Gothenburgh). Third party measurments and goes hand in hand with the Swedish Royal orchestra statement Statement

Special Wing classrooms for children with hearing loss (cochlear implants).

Some statements from my own CV (over 2000 references ) SMT | A handful of references and work photos


* Forest acoustic Boom Library

Gunshots decay


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverberation

Masking effects
Perceptual Audio Demonstrations

http://www.ece.uvic.ca/~elec499/2003...os/track22.wav

Perceptual Audio Demonstrations

Best
Matts
www.diffusor.com

Last edited by diffusor.com; 30th August 2015 at 12:28 PM.. Reason: Triple F
Old 19th August 2015 | Show parent
  #166
Lives for gear
 
Mctwins's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Hallo!

It is interesting to see a great response with two differen't loudspeaker position.

Very Nice!!!
Old 20th August 2015 | Show parent
  #167
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mctwins ➡️
Hallo!

It is interesting to see a great response with two differen't loudspeaker position.

Very Nice!!!
Check smoothing value on these before getting overly excited.
Old 21st August 2015 | Show parent
  #168
Lives for gear
 
Mctwins's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northward ➡️
Check smoothing value on these before getting overly excited.
Hallo!

What do you mean by smoothing?

To me, the main speakers fullfills the EBU norm at +/- 3dB at 1/3 oct band.
Old 21st August 2015 | Show parent
  #169
Lives for gear
 
jim1961's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mctwins ➡️
Hallo!

What do you mean by smoothing?

To me, the main speakers fullfills the EBU norm at +/- 3dB at 1/3 oct band.
+/- 3dB at 1/3 oct smoothing isnt that great to begin with, IMO. But more importantly, that amount of smoothing misses peaks and valleys that are quite audible.

+/- 3dB at 1/24th oct smoothing, now that is noteworthy. +/- 2.5 at 1/24th even better
Attached Thumbnails
Is my room big enough for a diffusor?-fr-1-24th-2.jpg  

Last edited by jim1961; 22nd August 2015 at 03:40 PM..
Old 30th August 2015 | Show parent
  #170
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northward ➡️
Check smoothing value on these before getting overly excited.
Northward, your contribution in this thread (highfived by your peers, https://gearspace.com/board/10717004-post146.html), is in my opinion quite confusing and puzzeling. It also raised questions against other "forest concepts" for example RPG ambechoic, Multon and Boggies My room. Which has all recieved very good reviews from wellknown mixers.
Maybe its because your "savannah sabin concept" is not about diffusing the early reflections and as you say 27 minutes in in this podcast. Your concept does not work in small rooms and the thread is about diffusion in small rooms!

DrHans showed two measurements from his room from two monitor pairs with two different positions which you discarded. There where both in +-3dB at 1/3 octave smoothing and with a almost flat bass respons. And this with a mixing console, extra monitors, tv monitors and a mix postion 1.8m from the speakers.
I think that even the most untrained acousticians would see that that is a very well balanced room .
Would be interesting if any other concept can replicate a similar nearfield critical listening from 30 Hz (under 20m2 before treatment) with two different positioned monitor pairs (without using the chicken Wings you so "polite" called them) that fulfill the EBU std (1/3 oct) and also minimize the troublesome head shadowing effect.
All in with the S-field modules (S-field Picture) its possible to even go down to 10m2.

Best
Matts

diffusor.com
Old 30th August 2015 | Show parent
  #171
Gear Guru
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Head Trouble

Quote:
also minimize the troublesome head shadowing effect.
What are you referring to?

DD
Old 30th August 2015 | Show parent
  #172
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusor.com ➡️
Northward, your contribution in this thread (highfived by your peers, https://gearspace.com/board/10717004-post146.html), is in my opinion quite confusing and puzzeling. It also raised questions against other "forest concepts" for example RPG ambechoic, Multon and Boggies My room. Which has all recieved very good reviews from wellknown mixers.
Maybe its because your "savannah sabin concept" is not about diffusing the early reflections and as you say 27 minutes in in this podcast. Your concept does not work in small rooms and the thread is about diffusion in small rooms!

DrHans showed two measurements from his room from two monitor pairs with two different positions which you discarded. There where both in +-3dB at 1/3 octave smoothing and with a almost flat bass respons. And this with a mixing console, extra monitors, tv monitors and a mix postion 1.8m from the speakers.
I think that even the most untrained acousticians would see that that is a very well balanced room .
Would be interesting if any other concept can replicate a similar nearfield critical listening from 30 Hz (under 20m2 before treatment) with two different positioned monitor pairs (without using the chicken Wings you so "polite" called them) that fulfill the EBU std (1/3 oct) and also minimize the troublesome head shadowing effect.
All in with the S-field modules (S-field Picture) its possible to even go down to 10m2.

Best
Matts

diffusor.com
My concept "does not work" in small rooms because to attain the systematic high level of quality we want to work with and stand by the guarantee on results we provide with all our designs, we have to set reasonable limits - and be realistic as to what is possible and what makes financial sense for the client, as well as making sure the ergonomics are workable. To attain the kind of benchmark we set for our rooms eats up real estate - there is no way around it.

This is a limit we set because we're serious about our work and respect the trust clients put in our work.

I haven't yet met a professional producer, mixer or mastering engineer happy to work in 12m² - and I have yet to meet clients happy to spend a week mixing in 12m² breathing in the neck of the engineer.

Though I'd love to see your system work in 10m² / 100ft² - with a Schroeder frequency above 300Hz (?), respecting critical distance to speakers (?), minimal distance to diffusors (?), full LF management with constant (controlled) decay (?)... All that sorted out neatly at once thanks to the wings and varitunes.

I think you should also realize that the speakers to room response of a FTB room is a LOT closer to the Ambechoic rooms you mention (-30dB immediate drop followed by constant broadband decay) than what you're doing.

Your forest reference still doesn't hold a candle.

Honestly I am not interested in having a circular conversation with you - because you're good at it.
Old 30th August 2015 | Show parent
  #173
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusor.com ➡️
Would be interesting if any other concept can replicate a similar nearfield critical listening from 30 Hz (under 20m2 before treatment) with two different positioned monitor pairs (without using the chicken Wings you so "polite" called them) that fulfill the EBU std (1/3 oct) and also minimize the troublesome head shadowing effect.
All in with the S-field modules its possible to even go down to 10m2.

Best
Matts
One last bit on that one.

Every commercial Radio station's "on air" booth or tiny editing booth I have visited (and sometimes built) meet the EBU requirements with the cheapest most basic and simple treatment applied.

This isn't anything special. It's a rudimentary and quite loose benchmark that the organization agreed on that aims at achieving industry-wide minimum quality standards in these types of environments. Just like ITU and other similar standards do.

Any professional studio to LEDE / RFZ / N.E. / FTB will vastly exceed the response of an EBU room. Attached the EBU document.

Page 5:

2.2. Early reflections
Early reflections are defined as reflections from boundary surfaces or other surfaces in the room which
reach the listening area within the first 15 ms after the arrival of the direct sound. The levels of these reflections
should be at least 10 dB below the level of the direct sound for all frequencies in the range 1 kHz to 8 kHz


1kHz-8kHz - This is done in heartbeat. 50mm of rockwool will do that.

BTW, on page 11 - they say:

"Listening room dimensions
The minimum floor area should be:
40 m2 for a reference listening room;
30 m2 for a high–quality sound control room"


Crazy enough, it's about the exact same dimensions we determined as our minimal size benchmark (30m²) - although likely not for the same reasons.

Or are we not discussing the same EBU document?
Attached Files
File Type: pdf tech3276.pdf (53.3 KB, 271 views)
Old 4th October 2015
  #174
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northward
To attain the kind of benchmark we set for our rooms eats up real estate - there is no way around it.
Yes that´s true for all companies/acousticans that put/use Sabin value on there bass traps. We also need a paradigm shift in the diffusor world, Schröder vs Wings to do what you think is impossible.
First we have to step out of the Sabin box and use the SMT toolbox that fools the shirt out of Mr Sabin.
Then we end up in the S-field concept, representing the "Forest acoustic".
SMT S-field Wing effect rest on the pdf that started your ”attack” on the concept that takes full advantage of the humans auditoriums evolution "second chans" ( that you dont give a candle) that kept us humans alive in the forest.
To keep up with the wing effect, SMT take advantage of the fact that axial modes is not a energy problem, it´s an amplitude problem. Strong voices on GS just don't understand the fundamentals principles behind ”the Robin Hood effect"!
One of many examples troughout the years:
https://gearspace.com/board/10677731-post83.html

The Varitune family can not be Sabin lab tested as they are reactive modules and couples directly to the air. That leads to a perfect impedance match to the reactive axial mode problem thats 90 degrees out of phase with the active wave.

When the Wing and Varitune family are used together, real estate consumption is reduced to 10-15%. Independent of room volume, down to 20 Hz. Instead of 30-50% using any kind of Sabin absorber that also decrease amp/speaker headroom.
Compared to all Sabin concepts that do there best to absorb the early reflections an increased resolution and accuracy is created thanks to the Wing effect that enhance/extend the fusion zone.
The well known fundamental small room psychoacoustic keystones that the SMT´s PDF rest on are also backed up by Floyd Toole's several hundred references you clearly must have missed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Difussor.com
"Nortward one of the keystones in psychoacooustic is the aprox 1000 times timeconstant difference between the hearing auditorium and the brain A sound that is 1 ms , sounds much lower in level than the one that is 100 ms long despite the fact that the amplitude is the same. A estimated distinguishes of about 20 dB in subjective level. By lengthening the short sound in time without affecting the amplitude increases gradually, the subjective level and thus reduces different kind of masking effects relative to other frequencies / sounds. This also explain why we must measure peak level (0,05ms rise time ) to keep track on hearing harmful levels the brain dont percive A powerfull example is a gunshot in the open field with a peak level of over 150dB in a fraction of a second and it just sound as pops but listen to a rock concert at the same level is not a good idea "
From Floyd Tools exellent book Sound Reproduction:
"Reverberation alone could increase our sensitivity to a medium or low-Q resonance by about 10 dB - a huge effect. This latter fact explains why music is so much more satisfying in a reverberant space than outdoors - timbrally richer because we can hear more of the resonant subtleties. It also explains why the toughest test for loudspeaker accuracy is in a room with some reflections, and why headphones (which have no added reflections) have an inherent advantage, and can sound acceptable when measurements indicate that there really are resonant problems. Killing all early reflections with absorbers not only changes imaging, it also makes loudspeakers with poorly controlled directivity sound better. All interesting stuff for audio folk.
The SMT answers to your "attack* about the SMT pdf have not yet been answered!

The myth that dense early reflections should add distortion or sweeten the listening is just a myth as its the total opposite. A timbre match second chance create higher resolution and accuracy because the brain will have more time to expose different masking effects and resonant subtleties. By removing "the second chance" it's instead more likely to sweeten the mix so its sound unnatural in rooms with a homogeneous broadband diffuse field.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northward
"I haven't yet met a professional producer, mixer or mastering engineer happy to work in 12m² - and I have yet to meet clients happy to spend a week mixing in 12m² breathing in the neck of the engineer.
Though I'd love to see your system work in 10m² / 100ft² - with a Schroeder frequency above 300Hz (?), respecting critical distance to speakers (?), minimal distance to diffusors (?), full LF management with constant (controlled) decay (?)... All that sorted out neatly at once thanks to the wings and varitunes.
If you give me a 25m3 room, I have no problem to transform that space to a high resoluted, accurate, criticall mix room, without the head shadow effect. All I need, as mentioned above, is the Varitune and the game changing Wing family. Anyone with a genuine interest is welcome to mail me and I will guide them to the nearest reference.


Some client statements:
This is so cool and amazing!
In my world the new wing technology has become a revolution!*
My room is only 6.5 m2, but I have no problem at all with reflections and the definition´s very exact.
Now mixing is fun
- Christian Edgren, mixing engineer at Traxton Recording, Stockholm

SMT AB managed to transform my miniscule closet with a floor space of 7.5m2 into a high quality studio and listening space. They collaborate with professional carpenters who have a great deal of experience with acoustics in order to achieve the required changes. It doesn’t just sound great now, the panels and installation looks fantastic! I highly recommend SMT AB
- Fredrik T, Composer and producer.
The need for small criticall Wing mix rooms are bottomless and contribute why the SMT Swedish factory have invested in a new CNC machine adapted special for the Wing family .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northward
"I think you should also realize that the speakers to room response of a FTB room is a LOT closer to the Ambechoic rooms you mention (-30dB immediate drop followed by constant broadband decay) than what you're doing.
Your forest reference still doesn't hold a candle
Angus/Howard book spot on explained the Wing effect I referred to earlier when they psychoacoustic explained Blackbird Studio C. Those countless wood sticks reflections enhance the fusion zone for higher resolution, accuracy and neutral mix conditions. You have described three different room sizes with 3 different decay times, so your are stuck in the Sabin Box and psychoacoustic not even in the same ballpark compared to the forest acoustic in both Blackbird Studio C and DrHans small mixroom.
If you missed it here it is again:
Acoustics and Psychoacoustics Applied - Part 1: Listening room design | EE Times

To better understand the Forest acoustics/S-field and the SMT pdf, we can cut out a 10, 30 and 60m2 area in a dense forest and then measure the decay with speaker and mike inside each opening. My own and several other measurements in a forest with a normal dense set of trees show T30 around 0,4s in all three spaces. Similar result as the Wing effect in this brain teasing post that actually show how broadband the Wing modules work
https://gearspace.com/board/8800436-post156.html
If we move the mike 200m away from the forest openings T30 will increase well over 1 second thanks to the contribution of countless tree trunks with reflections levels between approx -25 to -50dB.

This simple formula: 10 log X. Were X is the amount of reflections, explain the above and why example Blackbird Studio C and Boggys "My room" doesn´t sound dead. The auditory system optimized this "second chans" under thousands and thousands of years which gave the humans a fair chans to hear the predators sneaking up at a long distance.

Wing regards

Matts

Last edited by diffusor.com; 4th October 2015 at 09:53 PM.. Reason: Wrong link
Old 4th October 2015 | Show parent
  #175
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan ➡️
What are you referring to?

DD
Hi DD!
As we have approximately 0.27ms time difference between our ears a wide dip around 2kHz will occur for a sound source arriving at 30 degrees from the frontal axis.



From Floyd Tooles great book "Sound Reproduction" about the headshadow effect:

”By any standards, this is a huge spectral distortion, a serious fault because it affects the featured "talent" in most recordings-the person whose picture is on the album cover. Under what circumstances are we likely to hear it as shown here? Obviously, only when the direct sound from the loudspeakers is the dominant sound arriving at the listener's ears. This is the situation in many recording control rooms and custom home theaters, where special care is taken to attenuate early reflections.* ln normally reflective rooms, reflections that arrive from other directions at different times will help to fill in the spectral hole because there will be no acoustical interference associated with those sounds. Therefore, in normally reflective rooms, this will not be as serious as the curve in Figure 9.7d suggests—a fact confirmed by data from Shirley et al. (2007) in the data shown in Figure 9.7c It is a clearly audible effect. Augspurger (I990) describes how easy it is to hear the effect using 1/3-octave bands of pink noise, observing .1 “distinct null at 2 kHz" (p. 177). Pullki (2001) confirmed that the comb filter was the dominant audible coloration in anechoic listening to amplitude-panned virtual images but that it was lessened by roomreflections.”

SMT Wing mix room customers always comment how broad and even the sweet spot is even in the nearfield. This is one of several ways to confirm the homogeneous diffuse reflection field the Wing family create in the nearfield.
Old 5th October 2015 | Show parent
  #176
Gear Guru
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Shadows

This head shadow would presumably also apply if one were say sitting in front of and close to a string quartet, i.e. in reality.
Also, a lot of music is listened to totally anechoically and with a total head shadow, these days. i.e. in cans.

DD
Old 5th October 2015 | Show parent
  #177
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusor.com ➡️
Yes that´s true for all companies/acousticans that put/use Sabin value on there bass traps. We also need a paradigm shift in the diffusor world, Schröder vs Wings to do what you think is impossible.
First we have to step out of the Sabin box and use the SMT toolbox that fools the shirt out of Mr Sabin.
Then we end up in the S-field concept, representing the "Forest acoustic".
SMT S-field Wing effect rest on the pdf that started your ”attack” on the concept that takes full advantage of the humans auditoriums evolution "second chans" ( that you dont give a candle) that kept us humans alive in the forest.
To keep up with the wing effect, SMT take advantage of the fact that axial modes is not a energy problem, it´s an amplitude problem. Strong voices on GS just don't understand the fundamentals principles behind ”the Robin Hood effect"!
One of many examples troughout the years:
https://gearspace.com/board/10677731-post83.html

The Varitune family can not be Sabin lab tested as they are reactive modules and couples directly to the air. That leads to a perfect impedance match to the reactive axial mode problem thats 90 degrees out of phase with the active wave.

When the Wing and Varitune family are used together, real estate consumption is reduced to 10-15%. Independent of room volume, down to 20 Hz. Instead of 30-50% using any kind of Sabin absorber that also decrease amp/speaker headroom.
Compared to all Sabin concepts that do there best to absorb the early reflections an increased resolution and accuracy is created thanks to the Wing effect that enhance/extend the fusion zone.
The well known fundamental small room psychoacoustic keystones that the SMT´s PDF rest on are also backed up by Floyd Toole's several hundred references you clearly must have missed.


The SMT answers to your "attack* about the SMT pdf have not yet been answered!

The myth that dense early reflections should add distortion or sweeten the listening is just a myth as its the total opposite. A timbre match second chance create higher resolution and accuracy because the brain will have more time to expose different masking effects and resonant subtleties. By removing "the second chance" it's instead more likely to sweeten the mix so its sound unnatural in rooms with a homogeneous broadband diffuse field.

If you give me a 25m3 room, I have no problem to transform that space to a high resoluted, accurate, criticall mix room, without the head shadow effect. All I need, as mentioned above, is the Varitune and the game changing Wing family. Anyone with a genuine interest is welcome to mail me and I will guide them to the nearest reference.


Some client statements:
This is so cool and amazing!
In my world the new wing technology has become a revolution!*
My room is only 6.5 m2, but I have no problem at all with reflections and the definition´s very exact.
Now mixing is fun
- Christian Edgren, mixing engineer at Traxton Recording, Stockholm

SMT AB managed to transform my miniscule closet with a floor space of 7.5m2 into a high quality studio and listening space. They collaborate with professional carpenters who have a great deal of experience with acoustics in order to achieve the required changes. It doesn’t just sound great now, the panels and installation looks fantastic! I highly recommend SMT AB
- Fredrik T, Composer and producer.
The need for small criticall Wing mix rooms are bottomless and contribute why the SMT Swedish factory have invested in a new CNC machine adapted special for the Wing family .

Angus/Howard book spot on explained the Wing effect I referred to earlier when they psychoacoustic explained Blackbird Studio C. Those countless wood sticks reflections enhance the fusion zone for higher resolution, accuracy and neutral mix conditions. You have described three different room sizes with 3 different decay times, so your are stuck in the Sabin Box and psychoacoustic not even in the same ballpark compared to the forest acoustic in both Blackbird Studio C and DrHans small mixroom.
If you missed it here it is again:
Acoustics and Psychoacoustics Applied - Part 1: Listening room design | EE Times

To better understand the Forest acoustics/S-field and the SMT pdf, we can cut out a 10, 30 and 60m2 area in a dense forest and then measure the decay with speaker and mike inside each opening. My own and several other measurements in a forest with a normal dense set of trees show T30 around 0,4s in all three spaces. Similar result as the Wing effect in this brain teasing post that actually show how broadband the Wing modules work
https://gearspace.com/board/8800436-post156.html
If we move the mike 200m away from the forest openings T30 will increase well over 1 second thanks to the contribution of countless tree trunks with reflections levels between approx -25 to -50dB.

This simple formula: 10 log X. Were X is the amount of reflections, explain the above and why example Blackbird Studio C and Boggys "My room" doesn´t sound dead. The auditory system optimized this "second chans" under thousands and thousands of years which gave the humans a fair chans to hear the predators sneaking up at a long distance.

Wing regards

Matts
Matts,

I'm just not interested in keeping this thread alive. There is no point in having yet another circular, point to point discussion with you on Gearslutz.

Right now we work with a room model (FTB) that gets us almost too much work to handle, spread over 4 continents, with very happy clients. No new magic buzz words, no sudden discovery that all our predecessors got the physics of sound-waves wrong, nothing that 'can't be measured' in it. It's good old physics of sound, we're building on decades of research adding our little brick to it all. It's all measurable and can be clearly explained. The psycho-acoustics response can be too. It is an evolution based on solid foundations, not a revolution.

If we got it wrong, I'd be doing something else right now. It's an incredibly difficult field to survive in.

And there's more than one way to skin that cat. Boggy's work (that you mention) is an example among many. The difference between him and you is that whenever he explains something, I have zero problem with it. It's all clear. Whenever you explain something, all the alarms go off in my head.

Take care and best of luck,
Old 5th October 2015 | Show parent
  #178
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan ➡️
This head shadow would presumably also apply if one were say sitting in front of and close to a string quartet, i.e. in reality.
Also, a lot of music is listened to totally anechoically and with a total head shadow, these days. i.e. in cans.
I hope I don't come off as defending the diffusor.com dude, because I'm not -- nearly everything he says comes off as marketing nonsense.

But as far as the head shadow goes, yes you'd have a head shadow in front of a string quartet. I'm not sure why the diffusor.com dude makes such a big deal of "eliminating" it (it's a fact of life as long as stereo is used and as long as the direct sound of a loudspeaker is dominant), but it IS frequently useful to do a true mono check (by true mono I mean one speaker, rather than two speakers outputting the same mono signal) because you eliminate this shadow. It can help hear details in that 2khz region that are more difficult in stereo.

But we should note that cans would have no such head shadow, as the sound does not have different path lengths to each ear.
Old 5th October 2015 | Show parent
  #179
Lives for gear
 
Mctwins's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I find this very interesting!!

Old 9th October 2015 | Show parent
  #180
Lives for gear
 
akebrake's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Science vs Marketing

[QUOTE=Mctwins;11384470]I find this very interesting!!

Fully agree. Thanks for that link!

I see that lecture as a compilation of his book: Toole (2008) "Sound Reproduction") plus some later research

It's nice to hear the author explain diagrams, results and the arguments supporting these.

Cheers
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 428 views: 15954
Avatar for grumphh
grumphh 1st October 2016
replies: 2399 views: 369077
Avatar for Lenno
Lenno 1 week ago
replies: 419 views: 78851
Avatar for Volt9
Volt9 4 weeks ago
replies: 123 views: 10980
Avatar for js1
js1 2 weeks ago
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