And now for something completely different

[PaulP]

Here's a different take on control room design. Oval shaped room, reflective side surfaces
(absorption and diffusion spurned), speakers firing all over the place with wide dispersion lenses,
single rear poly and broadband absoption up front (and probably the ceiling).

It's called The Garden and it's found at The Plant Studios :

And an article on the philosophy :

http://www.sausalitoaudio.com/pdf/SA..._WPaper_R1.pdf

Paul P

[jhbrandt]

[quote Bulwinkle] I gotta get another hat! [/quote]

Yep. Pretty cool. These are like BeoLab 5s. I haven't read the article yet, but I think this is one done by David Lewis.. ?

[Jeffrey Hedback]

This is one of the best example of the David Moulton design approach...if you thoroughly read that article and further research David Moulton you'll find that he has a completely different approach than the LEDE (and variations) or Non-Environment rooms that are more commonly accepted.

Some of his concepts are in-line with Toole's recent research (specifically off-axis energy)...the bigger point is that there are more than "two" ways to get to the desired result of a "room consistent", phase coherent, smooth frequency response in a designed control room.

[jhbrandt]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Hedback

This is one of the best example of the David Moulton design approach...

YES! That's it.

[Weasel9992]

I don't think I could mix anything but Disney music in there.

Frank

[avare]

I find the strangest thing about Moulton's design concept is how little it is used. From what he has written about it being very economical to build, I would expect it to more widely used.

Andre

[jhbrandt]

Yes, very weird and unusual. Interesting concept but I don't know where he was heading with this.

[Bob Olhsson]

Dave had worked at Columbia Records. It was his answer to the question a lot of us older engineers had. Why did the mixes done on the mains in those old, relatively untreated control rooms seem to translate to the real world better than the Hidleys and LEDE rooms where you really needed near field reference speakers? Lots of folks had even stopped using the mains in "modern" control rooms.

Dave and Manny also do much more conventional looking rooms where the early reflection diffusion is tailored to reinforce the frequencies the chosen monitors lack in dispersion.

[bringmewater]

Dont you have to buy his special expensive speakers to do this economical room? What is specifically different from LEDE?

Originally Posted by avare

I find the strangest thing about Moulton's design concept is how little it is used. From what he has written about it being very economical to build, I would expect it to more widely used.

Andre

[DanDan]

Definitely looks different. I would love to see construction details though. That cartoon seems to suggest a rectangular room with enormous corner traps. Or are those rooms at the back?
I have to think the ceiling is absorptive, and if those are traps at the back....
It begins to look pretty anechoic.

I visited the Plant way back. I still remember the sound of the mains in the mix room. Best I have ever heard.
DD

[SörenHjalmarsson]

Originally Posted by bringmewater

What is specifically different from LEDE?

Well it's kind of the opposite of LEDE if you think about it. LEDE is all about attenuating the early reflections and 'moulding' the spacial response so as to make it improve the imaging and listening experience etc...

The Moulton is all about attenuating the Spacial response (which is said to create an undesirable reverbant wash in the CR) and instead preserve (mould) the lateral reflections so as to make them improve the listening experience, timbre and imaging etc...

I dont know about this particular studio, but Manny Lacarrubba recommends a highly absorbtive ceiling, highly absorbtive front wall (for better imaging) and a highly absorbtive rear wall. In the full lenght version of the following video (see link) he also recommends a poly on the rear wall (if the room allows) and polys or deflective surfaces on the sidewalls.

Manny's theories was actually the first i came in to contact with upon entering the world of acoustics. So upon entering the GS forum i had to rethink quite a bit, since all the slutz here gave me very contradictory advice. After reading up a bit, i can now see why that is.

I have learned that alot of Manny's ideas and theories are quite controversial to the common acoustic beliefs and to other room models.

Like angling the rear wall to attenuate the longitude axial modes for instance: YouTube - Standing Waves.mpg


Cheers,

[bringmewater]

Sounds like a crapload of absorption materials.

[bwo]

Interesting article written by Manny LaCarrubba:
THE WIDE-DISPERSION LISTENING SPACE: A NEW APPROACH TO CONTROL-ROOM DESIGN

Hmmm. Should I sell my diffusors on the rear wall and absorbers on sidewalls when I get speakers with a good polar response? That's the question.
Geddes' speakers will do the job.
GedLee LLC

[jhbrandt]

Originally Posted by bwo

Interesting article written by Manny LaCarrubba:
THE WIDE-DISPERSION LISTENING SPACE: A NEW APPROACH TO CONTROL-ROOM DESIGN

Hmmm. Should I sell my diffusors on the rear wall and absorbers on sidewalls when I get speakers with a good polar response? That's the question.
Geddes' speakers will do the job.
GedLee LLC

Interesting article. Now, he needs to prove something by comparing work from many engineers. All the claims need to be evaluated for the most accurate translation to the outside world and how easily adaptable the room is to most ears.

In My Opinion, LaCarrumbba & Moulton are some of many who subscribe to the multitude of Audiophile assumptions and presumptions that abound.
Honestly, I don't see how comb filtering can improve a sound source.

So, don't get rid of your good acoustics just yet.

Cheers,
John

[99zulu]

Originally Posted by jhbrandt

In My Opinion, LaCarrumbba & Moulton are some of many who subscribe to the multitude of Audiophile assumptions and presumptions that abound.

This alone is enough to make me skeptical. Great post John.

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by jhbrandt

Honestly, I don't see how comb filtering can improve a sound source.

Me either.

--Ethan

________________
The Acoustic Treatment Experts

[PaulP]

Originally Posted by jhbrandt

Honestly, I don't see how comb filtering can improve a sound source.

So you must also disagree with most of what Floyd Toole says in his book Sound Reproduction (the result of a lifetime of research at a national research center).

I believe you need reflections (and comb filtering) to get spaciousness. The question then boils down to whether or not spaciousness has a place in a control room. There isn't any doubt in my mind that it's desirable in an audio listening room, but I can see that some could find it gets in the way of critical analysis in a control room setting. Wouldn't most control rooms be too small to get any kind of spaciousness anyway ? The Garden looks big enough.

[Ethan Winer]

^^^ Paul, the desirability of ambience surely depends on the size of the room. And ambience from bare reflecting walls is not the same as ambience from a good QRD diffusor. So while it might be wrong to over-generalize, I think there are some basic Truths that always apply.

I don't see why a listening room should be different from a control room. In both cases you want to hear the music as clearly as possible, with minimal ringing and "room tone" overlaid on top. I have two audio rooms in my house, and I use both for listening and for mixing.

I admit I don't own Toole's book, and of course I have a lot of respect for him. But some of the conclusions I read others post leave me scratching my head. If you have Toole's book, here's a question I've never gotten a straight answer for: Of all the people he tested, how many were music and audio professionals? If the majority of people who preferred reflecting walls were untrained listeners, that negates it entirely for me. People can learn to appreciate good acoustics, and sometimes it's an acquired taste.

--Ethan

________________
The Acoustic Treatment Experts

[drew]

I've worked in that room. Sounds great and everything translated just fine.

[Jeffrey Hedback]

I think the point to remember is the different needs between production and reproduction. In production, you add variables that make it more difficult to maintain "accuracy" as you increase reflections. It can be done and done well but the system is more complicated and tightly related to off-axis speaker performance, angle of incidence, what part of the spectrum is reflected...etc.

[PaulP]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

If you have Toole's book, here's a question I've never gotten a straight answer for: Of all the people he tested, how many were music and audio professionals? If the majority of people who preferred reflecting walls were untrained listeners, that negates it entirely for me.

Well, Toole was one of the listeners . He also references several papers that I haven't looked up to see their experimental settings.

Google Books can give you a pretty good impression of the depth of this book. I found it a good read.

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by PaulP

Google Books can give you a pretty good impression of the depth of this book. I found it a good read.

Hey, nice link, thanks.

If anyone knows specifically the makeup of the testees (not testes ) please post it here. I've asked several times in forums when this has come up, and never gotten a straight answer.

--Ethan

________________
The Acoustic Treatment Experts

[avare]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Hedback

I think the point to remember is the different needs between production and reproduction. In production, you add variables that make it more difficult to maintain "accuracy" as you increase reflections.

+! with a bullet. It has been clearly stated that Toole's research was for pleasing reproduction. Control rooms are involved with creating the product. It is even becoming known as Quality Control room. Hmm, QC in the music business fifty years after Motown became famous for great product, and their QC.

A story from Bob Katz may help understand the difference. He had acquired a high end audiophile CD player for mastering QC. A product of his had glitches
on lower standard players. The high end player was correcting errors, making the listening experience more enjoyable. It hid errors on the product.

Andre

[bwo]

Does Floyd Toole mention the distance to sidewalls in his experiment?

We do have to keep in mind that Manny LaCarrubba are talking about speakers that have a very good polar response. Most speakers really don't fit that bill.

Conventional wisdom extols the benefits of directional loudspeakers and rooms that damp or diffuse early reflections. Usually, such treatment simply adds more lowpass filtering to the "lumpy lowpass" reflected sound and to the room tone in general. The loss in high-frequency information particularly reduces the localization of phantom images and phantom reverberance cues, and darkens the perceived overall timbre. With a loudspeaker that's free of the dispersion limitations, accurate lateral reflections from hard sidewalls in the room provide the listener with full-frequency, phase-coherent information that the ear/brain uses to localize the loudspeaker and related phantom images, an essential part of how humans perceive and localize sounds.

The better that we can localize the loudspeaker, the easier we can perceive all the timbral, timing and ambient cues in the recording that the loudspeakers, especially in stereo or surround arrays, are playing back. This may seem somewhat counterintuitive, but with such a system, phantom images become more stable and "palpable," and the depth of the stereo sound-field increases, with more resolution in the ambience and reverberance of the recording.

[jhbrandt]

Originally Posted by PaulP

So you must also disagree with most of what Floyd Toole says in his book Sound Reproduction (the result of a lifetime of research at a national research center).

I believe you need reflections (and comb filtering) to get spaciousness. The question then boils down to whether or not spaciousness has a place in a control room. There isn't any doubt in my mind that it's desirable in an audio listening room, but I can see that some could find it gets in the way of critical analysis in a control room setting. Wouldn't most control rooms be too small to get any kind of spaciousness anyway ? The Garden looks big enough.

Hahaha! Good point! But I think that you will agree with me that confusing reflections should not be a part of an accurate reference in a control room setting.

I have used speakers in a good live room, reproducing ITB instruments to blend with the original midi sounds in recordings and these techniques have given very 'realistic' results. So yes! Spaciousness in a recording can be magic.

I stand firm in my assertion for control room applications that early reflections from the room color and distort. -- If you are detailing photos, I would think that you would want the most accurate color monitor that you could buy. I am sure that one can get 'used' to a green tinted monitor just as most of us have had to get 'used' to bad rooms and still do excellent work. - but the point of having accurate control rooms is ease of work-flow and repeatability. Bottom line; "Sure, son. You keep doing it like that - you've got a job!"

Ethan,
I have the book & I'll give it a re-read in the next few weeks and see if I can answer your question.

Cheers,
John

[jhbrandt]

To quote from Toole's "Sound Reproduction": In introduction of his book he hoped that;
"Recording, mixing, and mastering engineers may find some thought provoking perspectives on how their activities and practices fit into the grand scheme of sound reproduction."
-- He said nothing of control room design.

I think the title sums it up: Sound Reproduction - not Critical Mixing Spaces.

Originally Posted by bwo

Does Floyd Toole mention the distance to sidewalls in his experiment?

We do have to keep in mind that Manny LaCarrubba are talking about speakers that have a very good polar response. Most speakers really don't fit that bill.

Distance to side walls would be random as would room sizes.

I think for an enjoyable listening experience + accuracy, polar response would not necessarily be top of the list. If you walk around a lot when you listen, forget accuracy and just enjoy. Spaciousness is great but it will smear the image that the original engineer or producer wanted you to see. --- They used to make little spring reverb units to add to your system and I know a few Audiophiles that used them for a time.

Originally Posted by bwo

quote:
"Conventional wisdom extols the benefits of directional loudspeakers and rooms that damp or diffuse early reflections. Usually, such treatment simply adds more lowpass filtering to the "lumpy lowpass" reflected sound and to the room tone in general. The loss in high-frequency information particularly reduces the localization of phantom images and phantom reverberance cues, and darkens the perceived overall timbre. With a loudspeaker that's free of the dispersion limitations, accurate lateral reflections from hard sidewalls in the room provide the listener with full-frequency, phase-coherent information that the ear/brain uses to localize the loudspeaker and related phantom images, an essential part of how humans perceive and localize sounds."

The first underlined is a description of a badly designed/tuned room.
I'm not sure where you got this quote but I believe that the second underlined is an oxymoron and I think B.S. -- And the continuation of the quote below is contradictory to the oxymoron statement.

The essential part of how we humans perceive and localize sound is important in any environment. That is why RFZ is very successful with reflective front ends & side walls. That is why NE rooms are successful. LEDE works.

On the other hand: compression ceilings didn't work, as well as other focusing designs with colorations coming from all directions. It's like trying to paint stripes on a road in a traffic jam!

The answer is simple; Close the road, clear the traffic. Job done. Get paid.

Originally Posted by bwo

quote continues: The better that we can localize the loudspeaker, the easier we can perceive all the timbral, timing and ambient cues in the recording that the loudspeakers, especially in stereo or surround arrays, are playing back. This may seem somewhat counterintuitive, but with such a system, phantom images become more stable and "palpable," and the depth of the stereo sound-field increases, with more resolution in the ambience and reverberance of the recording. " end quote

Underlined is very true and is the very reason that we do not want early reflections masking/distorting the original sound. The localization of a loudspeaker by a human being is done by listening to the direct sound of the loudspeaker only. Reflections will move/distort the image.

Ok, I'm done.
Cheers,
John

[fitZ]

(sigh) ya know, after spending 20 years reading as many "opinions" about this or that studio CR design elements as I could, I've come to the conclusion that Wes is right on...there are NO absolutes, and if so, then this whole "school of thought" thing is a joke. And this is why to this day, there is NO Standard for CR's because its all in the "ear of the beholder", which leads me to believe that potential Studio owners pick a designer based on what they SEE...not on a Standard...which doesn't exist. The "standard" is the designers reputation and what the potential owner WANTS. That's not to say it's bad or dumb...it's just ludicrous. You would think that by this day and age..some kind of "standard" would have filtered through the design maze that simply PROVED, beyond a shadow of a doubt...

"schools of thought" are finished...period. However.. this thread illustrates perfectly...why we AIN"T THERE YET

That is why NE rooms are successful. LEDE works.

Works? For what? John, with all due respect, your opinion illustrates perfectly why I have come to my conclusion.

About 10 years ago, after reading an opinion by John Sayers, which is totally contrary to your view, I posed a question at the now defunct Yahoo Acoustic Groups(which evolved into StudioTips). The question was..."SMALL ROOM DIFFUSION..FACT OR FICTION?" That post, somehow over the years, became part of a Science database found here, IF you want to read it. Soon, after receiving many detailed replies, I became curious why one professional Acoustician(Eric Desart), would have such profound opinions about the work of another(Alton Everest). Over the years, and tons of research, I'm no closer to an answer than I was then. Except that possession of Credentials doesn't mean diddly squat as far as I'm concerned any more.

What is amazing(at least to me), 10 years later...nothing has changed. The whole CR design thing is still a matter of opinion, conjecture, assumptions, schools of thought, dollars and cents, reputation, preferences, impression and new technology. But when it comes to ABSOLUTE proof of purpose...Zilch..Zero...None! Same ole opinions vs opinions. Well, that about sums up my disgust with this whole area of interest for me. It just seems sad, that Professionals in fields such as Acoustics have so many diametrically opposed views, and those views may be taken at FACE VALUE by non expert clients as FACT. When in reality, they are only professional opinions. Such as those expressed about QRD's in the Master Handbook of Acoustics. When Eric told me.."he should not like to discuss those"...well, I knew something was fishy. And when John Sayers told me..."I've seen MILES of those things torn out of studios...cause they DON'T work..".....I fell in the Rabbit hole for 10 years. What a waste of time.

So, all you Home Recording Studio DIY designers, I've got a suggestion for you...caveat emptor!!!!


btw, Dave Moulton Labrtory's USED to have a website with all kinds scientific "opinions" and psuedo physics illustrations etc etc. I sucked it all up. Later on...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! yep...I read yet another "scientific opinion" that Mr. Moulton was a "crackpot" with an agenda. So much for physics. Ok...well, I'm done. Carry on.

[avare]

Originally Posted by fitZ

there is NO Standard for CR's

AES TD1001, ITU BS 1116-1, EBU 3276 for three. All are similar.

Andre

Edit: I originally posted document numbers off the top of my head. Two of them were wrong. Sebg corrected them in a post on Jan 7. The numbers are now correct.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by jhbrandt

... The localization of a loudspeaker by a human being is done by listening to the direct sound of the loudspeaker only. Reflections will move/distort the image.

That's a perfect argument for monitoring only with headphones!

My experience has been that in order to create a credible illusion in a mix it is necessary to employ sufficient reverberation and delay effects to overcome the ambiance found in ordinary rooms and create a new imaginary space for the music to occupy. This is especially the case with electronic music or highly overdubbed productions. A problem with both headphones and LEDE rooms is that you tend to under-mix reverberation. Then we compress the audio in the mastering room to try and restore some of the missing "glue."

My experience is also that the excess low frequency early reflections from a practical RFZ leads to mixes that sound thin in the real world. Near fields provide a usable band-aid but there seems to be little evidence of superior results from using the mains to mix in RFZ rooms as compared to earlier designs.

Certainly LEDE is very appealing and satisfying from an intellectual standpoint but it seems very over-rated when it comes to real world results.

[bwo]

Originally Posted by jhbrandt

I think for an enjoyable listening experience + accuracy, polar response would not necessarily be top of the list. If you walk around a lot when you listen, forget accuracy and just enjoy. Spaciousness is great but it will smear the image that the original engineer or producer wanted you to see. --- They used to make little spring reverb units to add to your system and I know a few Audiophiles that used them for a time.

That something I don't comprehend fully. If the speakers have the same power response off axis as on axis, why wouldn't that be a benefit even at sweetpot? You listen after all to both reflective and directive sound.

Perhaps the great need for sidewall dampening is really due to speakers having a bad off axis response? And then the result is too dry and dead sound which again has to be fixed with adding diffusers on the far rear wall?

I'm not necessarily saying using absorbents on sidewalls are all bad, but maybe the need for it would be less with more accurate speakers and the overall sound would be more live and engaging.

Basically throwing out some thoughts. My perspective is a listening room by the way, I'm not into mixing.