ZR Acoustics?
#31
24th December 2008
Old 24th December 2008
  #31
Gear interested
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6

I went down to Hanson Hsu's office the other day, got to see his secrets, and signed the "infamous" non-disclosure agreement.

It broke my heart to learn that his design does not involve extra dimensions like I had predicted. . . .

To answer some of the questions I saw (without getting sued by Hanson), his patent is still pending and that's why you can't find it yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrebrito View Post
So is this new design reflections controlled ? If so what is different from previous ? Is it too dry, semi-anechoic approach ?
The difference is in his design, of which its patent is pending. Is it too dry? Do I want it dry? Yeah. But if you're talking about live rooms, Hanson can alter his design accordingly, just like you would with traditional treatments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by audiovisceral View Post
anechoic spaces are a great novelty but they are not musical. a good room should be tuned and play back at you just like a instrument.
I agree. I don't know of an anechoic space used as a control room for recording and mixing music, so if someone can post a link, that'd be cool.

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrebrito View Post
I don't mean to be disrespectful to anyone by the way, just trying to understand what is new here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spencerc View Post
I am not trying to disrespect anyone here (...)
Me neither!
#32
24th December 2008
Old 24th December 2008
  #32
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Hamilton, On Canada
Posts: 4,859

Quote:
Originally Posted by magnetglue View Post
I went down to Hanson Hsu's office the other day, got to see his secrets, and signed the "infamous" non-disclosure agreement.
Thanks for the research and information!

Would it be possible for Hanson to join in on this thread and give information that he is comfortable in making public without divulging any proprietary information?

Once again you work in helping to clarify this design is appreciated.

Another Andre,
Andre
#33
24th December 2008
Old 24th December 2008
  #33
Lives for gear
 
andrebrito's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Posts: 1,276

Quote:
I agree. I don't know of an anechoic space used as a control room for recording and mixing music, so if someone can post a link, that'd be cool.
All the rooms from Newell are pretty dry.. they have been built over the last 20 years... this is the kind of room he advocates in his book called the Non-Environment Control Room, where the only reflective surfaces are the front wall where the speakers are places and the floor..

Lots of photos on this page...

acústica — Reflexion Arts - Professional Audio and Acoustics
#34
24th December 2008
Old 24th December 2008
  #34
Lives for gear
 
andrebrito's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Posts: 1,276

About the patent process I also don't get it how it is possible to register a studio design.. otherwise all acoustical engineers would have to for common design now used such as for instance RFZ... does not make any sense at least for me that I am working on this field

IMHO he would gain much more benefit on publishing some papers on this matter on AES and get the recognition in the market
#35
24th December 2008
Old 24th December 2008
  #35
Gear interested
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6

Very cool. Thanks. I was picturing some truly anechoic sound chambers for testing equipment, which would have been absurd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrebrito View Post
(...) the only reflective surfaces are the front wall where the speakers are places and the floor (...)
That's different from ZR Acoustics.
#36
24th December 2008
Old 24th December 2008
  #36
Lives for gear
 
andrebrito's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Posts: 1,276

I've been in anechoic rooms listening to people speaking and music and the experience is quite odd and very unpleasent !

I wonder how many people here have been in anechoic rooms and what is their experience on them...
#37
25th December 2008
Old 25th December 2008
  #37
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Hamilton, On Canada
Posts: 4,859

The BBC RD Reoprt 1969-17 is about recording of music in an anechoic environment. Musician reactions to recording in an anechoic chamber are brief, but covered in the fourth paragraph in the sessions section.

Andre
#38
25th December 2008
Old 25th December 2008
  #38
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 190

I wish i was able to visit the office and do the non disclosure agreement, but im nowhere near there.

All i can do is guess how those standard consturction materieals could be used to make absorbers. Could be just cloth over rockwool, could be helmholtz style slots of perforations cut into drywall to deal with the sub 200hz. Could be drywall glued to the rockwool to make some sort of mass spring plate style absorber. Could be mulitple layers of materials. Seems in the article he implies they are standard materials , but in non standard 'locations', or it could be none of the above. For some reason the designer is interested in the idea of calculationg multiple orders of relfection,... yet he calls it zero reflection acoustics. maybe he'll reveal it all for xmas
#39
25th December 2008
Old 25th December 2008
  #39
Moderator
 
jayfrigo's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,533
My Recordings/Credits

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrebrito View Post
Anechoic spaces (or better semi-anechoic) as control rooms are NOT new, they have existed for over 20 years...
Actually, people experimented with very dead rooms long before 20 years ago; probably twice that. And I like them just as little today as I did 20+ years ago. What about Dr. Floyd Toole and his ideas (and supporting experimental data) that we will benefit from more reflections, not less?

Most people are trending toward more diffuse and less dead spaces over the past decade and more. In the extreme, consider Massenburg's "Ambechoic" space at Blackbird, done with the assistance of Dr. Peter D'Antonio from RPG. To go back to completely dead seems like a step backwards, though I suppose if you have no control over the space itself, one might be tempted to try to eliminate it. However I'm not sure this is the best answer, nor even really possible; and if you are designing a room from scratch, I believe there's no point at all in considering a completely dead approach.

I'm always willing to listen to ideas, supporting research, and implementations of new rooms. Perhaps once we hear more about his intent and application it will make more sense, but for the moment, it doesn't seem like the kind of room I'd like to work in. Instead of taking a bad room and trying to squash it dead, I'd prefer to simply work in a good room.

(yes, I know that's not always possible, but I would investigate other possible solutions as well)
#40
25th December 2008
Old 25th December 2008
  #40
Moderator
 
jayfrigo's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,533
My Recordings/Credits

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrebrito View Post
About the patent process I also don't get it how it is possible to register a studio design.. otherwise all acoustical engineers would have to for common design now used such as for instance RFZ... does not make any sense at least for me that I am working on this field
You can trademark a name, like LEDE, RFZ, or ZR, but to patent a process, it would need to be non-obvious, unique, and considerably different from prior art. So far I just hear normal materials providing trapping, and there are a host of ways to trap going back for decades from, for example, Mankovsky and many others. The Everest book gives a small sampling of the history.

As for the technique of calculating multiple reflection points and providing absorption at each one so that the cumulative effect is that nearly no energy returns to the listening position, this seems like ray-tracing that's been used for years, and putting treatment at the resulting calculated reflection points also is neither new nor terribly unique. There has to be something more to it, or the patent applied for can't be granted. I wonder how the examiner is looking into prior art in this case, and what was cited in the application.

I hope I don't sound too negative; I really am open to the possibility of something new that may be helpful in certain situations. There could be a lot more to this than meets the eye, and if so, that's great. However, until I hear more about it, I must remain skeptical. It seems a few in this thread have been treading lightly in saying essentially the same thing, and I certainly intend no disrespect toward Mr. Hsu, but after remaining quiet for a while, I figured I might as well offer an opinion since the subject seems to be sustaining interest in the forum.
#41
25th December 2008
Old 25th December 2008
  #41
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Hamilton, On Canada
Posts: 4,859

OT Thank you

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayfrigo View Post
there are a host of ways to trap going back for decades from, for example, Mankovsky and many others.
Thank you for mentioning Mankovsky, he is one of the forgotten pioneers of acoustics research of his time. A victim of the cold war on this side.

Andre
#42
25th December 2008
Old 25th December 2008
  #42
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: New Milford, CT, USA
Posts: 13,701

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayfrigo View Post
To go back to completely dead seems like a step backwards, though I suppose if you have no control over the space itself, one might be tempted to try to eliminate it.
Room size is a huge factor. A 35 by 45 foot control room should probably not be totally dead. A 4 by 4 by 8 foot high vocal booth must be totally dead or it will sound like crap. Rooms sizes between those extremes can be treated as appropriate.

--Ethan
#43
25th December 2008
Old 25th December 2008
  #43
Moderator
 
jayfrigo's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,533
My Recordings/Credits

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
Room size is a huge factor. A 35 by 45 foot control room should probably not be totally dead. A 4 by 4 by 8 foot high vocal booth must be totally dead or it will sound like crap. Rooms sizes between those extremes can be treated as appropriate.

--Ethan
A small vocal booth is indeed a place where a dead approach may be appropriate, but I wouldn't use a voice-over booth as a control room!
#44
25th December 2008
Old 25th December 2008
  #44
Moderator
 
jayfrigo's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,533
My Recordings/Credits

Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
Thank you for mentioning Mankovsky, he is one of the forgotten pioneers of acoustics research of his time. A victim of the cold war on this side.

Andre
I'm a big fan. I like to use perforated panel traps and such, so without his foundation of work, I'd be lost.
#45
25th December 2008
Old 25th December 2008
  #45
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Hamilton, On Canada
Posts: 4,859

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayfrigo View Post
I'm a big fan. I like to use perforated panel traps and such, so without his foundation of work, I'd be lost.
We seem to be drifting waiting for more information on ZR Acoustics. The latest research on perforated panels that I am aware of is ACOUSTICAL USES FOR PERFORATED METALS: by Schultz. A nice thing is that there are test results confirming the theoretical work available in Acoustical Application Tests of Perforated Metals.

Well punctured,
Andre
#46
25th December 2008
Old 25th December 2008
  #46
Lives for gear
 
andrebrito's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Posts: 1,276

Jay I completely agree with what you have said, it was basically what I wanted to say but even more complete, thanks !

The only thing I may comment was about Floyd Toole work... I have a slight different opinion from him since I rather prefer to have a CR slighter dry than a listening room where I allow more diffusion to occur.

I did some work in large room acoustics as well and I have used the same tools to predict reflections and decay of time in small rooms when using diffusion elements in the room
#47
25th December 2008
Old 25th December 2008
  #47
Lives for gear
 
AMIEL's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: Miami, Fl
Posts: 3,845

hi Magnetglue!
So do you know ant link or info on the web about ZR Acoustic...their website is basically empty.
Thanks!
#48
26th December 2008
Old 26th December 2008
  #48
Moderator
 
jayfrigo's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,533
My Recordings/Credits

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrebrito View Post
The only thing I may comment was about Floyd Toole work... I have a slight different opinion from him since I rather prefer to have a CR slighter dry than a listening room where I allow more diffusion to occur.
I have a difference of opinion with him regarding a couple points as well, though the research is certainly worthwhile overall. It is an interesting cog in the wheel, and definitely relevant to the discussion in this thread.

Regarding your comment about control rooms vs. listening rooms, I too believe in different approaches, and even for mastering rooms or post rooms, I approach each a bit differently. Sure, there's plenty of overlap in the basics, but application is different as each has unique needs.
#49
28th December 2008
Old 28th December 2008
  #49
Gear interested
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6

Sorry guys, I didn't mean to leave an impression that ZR Acoustics is completely dead like an anechoic chamber. It doesn't sound unnatural in any way. I was just asking if there were people out there who uses anechoic chambers for recording and mixing, and I wanted some URLs for me to check out.

Sorry if I caused some confusion.
#50
28th December 2008
Old 28th December 2008
  #50
Moderator
 
jayfrigo's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,533
My Recordings/Credits

Quote:
Originally Posted by magnetglue View Post
Sorry guys, I didn't mean to leave an impression that ZR Acoustics is completely dead like an anechoic chamber. It doesn't sound unnatural in any way. I was just asking if there were people out there who uses anechoic chambers for recording and mixing, and I wanted some URLs for me to check out.

Sorry if I caused some confusion.
It clearly doesn't look like an actual anechoic chamber, but as control rooms go, the approach certainly looks very dead.
#51
6th January 2009
Old 6th January 2009
  #51
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Denver CO
Posts: 2,195

I'm thinking that judging by the part where the interviewer says he traces the bounce and says 6dB here bounce, 6dB here. . . its like louvers built out of the drywall such that each set of louvers is pointed at another set of louvers etc to where they do not point back to the listening area.

Then behind each louver is your 703, so it's an absorber where it would reflect in a way that would not be a calculated reflection. The fabric is acoustically transparent and there to cover the otherwise exposed design and fiberglass.

If that is the case it sounds like a real pain in the ass to build. . .
#52
6th January 2009
Old 6th January 2009
  #52
Lives for gear
 
Weasel9992's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 4,338

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
I'm thinking that judging by the part where the interviewer says he traces the bounce and says 6dB here bounce, 6dB here. . . its like louvers built out of the drywall such that each set of louvers is pointed at another set of louvers etc to where they do not point back to the listening area.

Then behind each louver is your 703, so it's an absorber where it would reflect in a way that would not be a calculated reflection. The fabric is acoustically transparent and there to cover the otherwise exposed design and fiberglass.

If that is the case it sounds like a real pain in the ass to build. . .
Sure. Low reflection rooms are not new, which is why the question with respect to patent arises.


Frank
#53
6th January 2009
Old 6th January 2009
  #53
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Hamilton, On Canada
Posts: 4,859

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weasel9992 View Post
Sure. Low reflection rooms are not new, which is why the question with respect to patent arises.
Agreed. Neither is maintaining energy in the room BBC RD 1995-04. Maybe it is a combination of the two somehow? I hope not, for if it is, prior art for redirecting reflections has just been shown to the world.

Andre
#54
6th January 2009
Old 6th January 2009
  #54
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Denver CO
Posts: 2,195

Patent pending. . . anyone can apply for a patent.

The things that I see are, it fits "inside" a 3.5" wall, and

To demonstrate the movement of a series of his algorithmically aimed, ever-diminishing reflections — the essence of ZR — Hanson deliberately and precisely draws virtual ray traces through the air, counting "one bounce — down 6dB. Two — down 12dB. Three — down 18dB. Four — down 24dB. Five — down 30 … And now we're into the noise floor before it ever makes it back to your ears."

I'm guessing the difference from the BBC article you posted Avare, is that he's reflecting the sound back to the front of the room, then the ceiling, then the back, then the back sides, then floor (or something). I know I'm not saying anything you guys don't know, just thinking out loud I guess.

I'm really curious to know how he's "eliminating the inverse square law" and if he can also dial back gravity for me when I'm having a hard time getting out of bed in the morning. . .
#55
6th January 2009
Old 6th January 2009
  #55
Lives for gear
 
Weasel9992's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 4,338

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
I'm really curious to know how he's "eliminating the inverse square law" and if he can also dial back gravity for me when I'm having a hard time getting out of bed in the morning. . .


That was funny.

Frank
#56
6th January 2009
Old 6th January 2009
  #56
Lives for gear
 
Weasel9992's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 4,338

Quote:
Originally Posted by zboy2854 View Post
Well, whatever he's doing behind the curtain (or cloth if you will), if guys like Mike Shipley are using it, that's a pretty good endorsement in my book...
Sure, no doubt about it. At this point it's purely a technical conversation, really...as I said before, people vote with their checkbooks.

Frank
#57
7th January 2009
Old 7th January 2009
  #57
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Location: historic richmond va
Posts: 771

I thought I remember reading something that Mike Shipley did a mix of the same song in some big name studios and at home in his ZR room and chose the mix he did at home.


It would be cool if Mr Shipley could join this thread.
#58
8th January 2009
Old 8th January 2009
  #58
Moderator
 
jayfrigo's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,533
My Recordings/Credits

Quote:
Originally Posted by planet red View Post
I thought I remember reading something that Mike Shipley did a mix of the same song in some big name studios and at home in his ZR room and chose the mix he did at home.
He's probably much more intimately familiar and comfortable with the room and setup at home.
#59
16th March 2009
Old 16th March 2009
  #59
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,115

Any new developments here?
#60
3rd May 2009
Old 3rd May 2009
  #60
Lives for gear
 
beyarecords's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Virginia Water, Surrey, England
Posts: 572

Bump!
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Kip / Low End Theory
2
cjogo / High end
22
jcool / So much gear, so little time!
2
Jack Ruston / So much gear, so little time!
2

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.