Who is using diffusors in the "dead end"?

[WunderBro Flo]

I was wondering how many MEs here use diffusors in the "dead end" instead (or in addition) to absorption. I noticed quite a few photos of mastering places in the last years that had diffusors in that area behind and/or around the speakers that would "normally" be treated with absortive materials.

Who is doing it?

What are the benefits in your opinion?

Can it work better than absorption in the front and diffusion in the back?


Rock on!
Pat

[Waltz Mastering]

Originally Posted by WildCowboys

Can it work better than absorption in the front and diffusion in the back?

Every room is different and should be treated differently.

But in regards to front wall back wall in general, this can be common to some degree.

[wado1942]

I think the concept of an LEDE is a bit dated in the first place. Yes, more absorption should be used on one end to increase the time to the first significant reflection. But I believe this should be done as spot treatment and not entirely killing that end of the room. That said, diffusion can be used anywhere in the room, just be sure there's at least 2 meters between the listener to that boundary that's being diffused so that the reflections have space to spread. Otherwise, you'll be in better shape using absorption.

[finetuner]

You'll probably see diffusion along the rear wall (behind the listener) more often than behind the speakers.

I've installed some recently after comparing with soft surface panels (semi absorbing) and the untreated (dry-)wall. Untreated was slightly too busy/hard, dampened made the room seem smaller and too dry and dull where the diffusers offered the sense of a larger room with a tighter sound and retained hi freq. response.
There's approx. 4 mtr. between listening position and the back diffusers.

Diffusers in front of you (behind the speakers) will probably expand the depth of the imaginary sound stage. But, as mentioned above, you need ample space between them and the source or listener (whichever one applies).

You will notice that many studios are set up with the speakers and listener in the front half of the room. This is where the optimal frequency response is found for most rooms (38% rule of thumb).
Depending on the room's dimensions, such a setup sometimes won't leave much room for diffusers to have effect.
But since optimal frequency response is far more important (at least for mastering) than the depth of the sound stage, any sacrifice will be made in favor of the first.

Disturbing (early) reflections will affect the freq. response ultimately, but those are better treated with absorption anyway.

[steffen]

Franzis Manzella designed quite a few rooms with front diffusors.
so there must be something good to it

[Waltz Mastering]

You can use diffusors that also absorb.

[Alécio Costa]

Concerning the first picture, aren´t those those speakers too close to the wall? Imagine having a bump of 6dBs in the low end.


For sure the folk knows what he is doing.

[steffen]

Originally Posted by Alécio Costa

Concerning the first picture, aren´t those those speakers too close to the wall? Imagine having a bump of 6dBs in the low end.


For sure the folk knows what he is doing.

maybe the wall is made absobtive and the diffusor compensates? I dunno...Franzis knows...

[planet red]

A lot of times the diffusors on the front walls are made for 5.1 setups to diffuse the rear speakers.

Those pictures from Fran's rooms are using RPG Abfussors which are highly absorptive for being a diffusor.

[Waltz Mastering]

The ones I use are called "Difforber's"...or was it Difforptor's...; )

[G. E.]

Originally Posted by WildCowboys

... What are the benefits in your opinion?...

Putting a big Diffusor (PRD) on the front wall between the speakers has been the single most noticable acoustic improvement ever for me using a diffuser (I've tried a lot, see "DIY Diffusors to the Max"-thread). In my not-too-large room it brought back a lot of inherent depth to the sound-stage.

Sorry, no quality pics yet, 3D-rendering of the situation (anything but the ceiling diffusors already being there):

[steffen]

Originally Posted by planet red

A lot of times the diffusors on the front walls are made for 5.1 setups to diffuse the rear speakers.

makes sense, both rooms shown are 5.1 rooms

[Alécio Costa]

Is Ethan Winer in the room? Help!

[mxeryus]

Yes, he is hiding behind one of the red thingies.... really trapped....

Oh no, you meant something else!

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by Alécio Costa

Is Ethan Winer in the room? Help!

I'm here, I just didn't see anything to comment on yet. You got a question for me?

--Ethan

[Audiop]

A diffusor behind the speakers make littel sense. It can adda sense of space but is that what a control room listeneing set up is about?

I thought it was about hearing what was on the recording, not adding something to the recording. Letäs not forget what the word monitor stands for.

Ideally one could say a mix should be done on the very same set up as it is intended to be listened at (end consumer) but that is a bit unrealistic for commercial products I guess..

Make it neutral at least and make sure you get a window as open as possible into the recording.


If you can not use splayed walls and/or in wall systems then use absorbtion for the early first reflection points and leave a surface blank between the speakers where you have no early reflections. That way you will have some later contribution from this angle and that helps with filling in and also compensating some for the errors in the stereophonic playback.


/Peter

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by Alécio Costa

Concerning the first picture, aren´t those those speakers too close to the wall? Imagine having a bump of 6dBs in the low end.


For sure the folk knows what he is doing.

Hi!

The speaker should ideally be designed for a specific distance from surrounding surfaces. It's impossible to say anything without knowing the degree of baffle step correction in the specific speaker.


/Peter

[KyleDiSanto]

A few of the rooms here at Masterdisk have it this way and they sound great

[jayfrigo]

A QRD directly behind each left and right speaker is not my first choice, though choosing an "Abfussor" helps a bit. Still, not really the most effective use. All the usual QRD issues must still be considered, including effective bandwidth, distance to listening position in wavelengths (must be far enough for proper integration), and 1/4 wave well absorption.

On the other hand, 2D diffusion on the center front wall can definitely be a good thing in some applications, with obvious caveats about fitting it into the whole-room plan, and proper implementation. An excellent example of this is found in the Russ Berger designed Mastermix in Nashville (though I still think Hanks's console is larger than optimal): http://www.sitemason.com/page/imjQoo

Generally spaced single QRDs (as in the pro control control room above) rather than localized arrays can offer some generalized benefits, though again, I might consider Abfussors for the front and sides depending on the circumstances, and this still wouldn't be my go-to choice in most general situations. It would be a solution to a specific design-goal, unique to a particular space and client's needs.

Also worth noting, the thread title mentions "dead end" but these variations would not be used in a traditional LEDE (Live End Dead End) room. Most designs today are not strictly LEDE, though some concepts from an evolution of a modified LEDE are still in use. Still, the term "dead end" is not really applicable here. Simply "front of the room" will suffice.

[73*]

Originally Posted by Audiop

Letäs not forget what the word monitor stands for.

This brings to mind a lot of the audio philosophy woven into Phillip Newells papers on control room monitoring and his books studio design. Sometimes it seems to be forgotten that these spaces aren't supposed to make listening to music enjoyable, but rather to give, as you said, as clear an open window as possible to hear what's on the medium. If we're lucky it sounds wonderfull, if not it just means that there is a lot of work to do.

Originally Posted by jayfrigo

Most designs today are not strictly LEDE, though some concepts from an evolution of a modified LEDE are still in use.

Here's a question I've been wanting to ask. What are the current major design "styles" that are being used for mastering studios (if any)? Of course every room and the external structures they are built in call for something different but are there design philosophies underling mastering room design? Based on most photographs I've seen, a lot seem to be based on a LEDE design, or at the very least take advantage of a reflection free zone and use diffusion in one way or another. Are there any that lean more towards the Non Environment approach? From what I've gathered I don't believe that a full on non-environment design would really work in a mastering room, as it depends heavily on the use of flush mounted monitors, and I have yet to come across seeing any mastering rooms make use of such a set up (if I'm mistaken please correct me). Are mastering rooms a hybrid of sorts between recording/mixing studio control room and an audiophile type listening room?


(sorry for all the questions)


Gabriel.