My diffusor design - is it ok?

[jayfrigo]

RFZ grew out of LEDE, but they are not identical. LEDE is very specific, and several of the criteria have been either refined or abandoned for post-LEDE designs. Still, it was an important step in the development of control room acoustics.

Re: this thread, keep it friendly. I hate having to lock things. Thanks.

[Jens Eklund]

Just in case anyone is still confused:

The design concepts (LEDE vs. RFZ) are different but they share the same acoustic response criteria. Quoting the creator of RFZ: "A design for implementing a LEDE control room is proposed."

… sorry for the repetition but it seems necessary.

[DanDan]

I doubt that anyone is confused about the LEDE and RFZ. A peculiar accusation directed at nobody or everybody?
But some of the interpretations stated here have been cryptic and seemingly contradictory.
I have asked questions in the hope of clarity.

Jens this was and remains an honest question.

I am genuinely intrigued. Explain please.
I would love to hear your simply stated definition of both LEDE and RFZ.

DD

[johndykstra]

Originally Posted by DanDan

EDIT. If I were attempting to efficiently deliver a blast of diffused but delayed energy I guess I would try specular Haas Kickers, focussed not at the listener's backside but at side Diffusors.

In doing so, how would you prevent the side diffusers from not splashing the ISD window when struck with the direct sound? If the ISD termination is going to occur from rear wall deflectors, hit the diffusers and then the listener, that will happen much later (ok... MSec later, but that's a long time here) than direct sound diffuser/listener.

[Jens Eklund]

Originally Posted by DanDan

I doubt that anyone is confused about the LEDE and RFZ. A peculiar accusation directed at nobody or everybody?
But some of the interpretations stated here have been cryptic and seemingly contradictory.
I have asked questions in the hope of clarity.

Jens this was and remains an honest question.

DD

Read my posts in this thread. If you want to know more, read some papers/literature explaining the design concept. I´ve lost all interest in this thread.

[DanDan]

In doing so, how would you prevent the side diffusers from not splashing the ISD window when struck with the direct sound? If the ISD termination is going to occur from rear wall deflectors, hit the diffusers and then the listener, that will happen much later (ok... MSec later, but that's a long time here) than direct sound diffuser/listener.

Decent question thanks John. It was really just a passing thought. Obviously the presence of side diffusors prevents a termination in any case.
But I have difficulty in finding a reason for the gap. Many modern designs seem to concur.

Again, I have not experienced the problem which is solved by LEDE.
I have no trouble distinguishing reflections on a recorded source irrespective.
I would love to hear someone suggest a reason why a blast of sound from behind could lead to more accurate hearing.

Of course on top of that, there are very few instances where the room is significantly included in the source recording.
Boggy's paper does claim that diffuse early energy is vital.
There are things worth discussing here.


DD

[bwo]

What'a disturbing is that some are pointing to what a certain person/acoustican does, a paper with no scientific backup, to what's popular, to an experience that seemed to work ok, etc. as an evidence of what is accurate. Instead of focusing on research and studies on the topic. I don't know if it is due to a lack of understanding what science and proof is or just the fact that one believes stronger in what average Joe does then more obejctive researches. For me that makes no sense at all and I don't see any point in discussing in that matter.
As stated earlier, there are certain aspects that can be discussed. But one needs at least to agree on what laying of the ground is considered to make something accurate. That common logic doesn't seem to be present here. It's sort of like a discussion between a muslim and an atheist. Their worldview is radically different.

[DanDan]

bwo, could you refer directly to some research which suggests a reason why LEDE is more accurate?
All I am finding here in Davis Patronis is a solution to a problem. A problem which I have never experienced in years of studio work.

As I said, for historical reasons there is plenty of info on LEDE available.
As the modern designs tend to be composites of various techniques, one will not find such singular texts.
More importantly, it is a fact that one of the world's cutting edge designers implements rooms based on their own psychoacoustic and acoustic research.
Which is not published.

So, I am talking about what is actually happening, not something that did.

If LEDE was truly the best, resulting in the most accurate hearing, the world of studios and studio builders is in gross error and has been for years.


DD

[johndykstra]

Dan I have a hard time believing you've been here this entire time and haven't at least briefly encountered studies performed by Haas. Are you being deliberately obtuse in order to tease something out in particular?

From what I have gathered in my time here briefly and very paraphrased:

Some say the trigger is a mechanism to put the primitive brain at ease, being able to hear your surroundings. Some say the brain is stressed by this trigger.

Some say the occurrence of the trigger "tricks" the brain into viewing the ISD gap is even more anechoic in nature. Bionic hearing if you will. Surgical. Clearly some disagree.

Some may argue, that we as mixing engineers attempting to achieve a mix that will translate should probably do so in a room that has some semblance to the end user's room, that's to say with reflections... but controlled in a manner so as to represent the average room, but without sounding like any one room in particular. Clearly, some disagree.

NonEnvironment rooms exist for a reason. So do RFZs. For either "school of thought" to claim the other can't be "accurate" is hogwash. If either were truly "right", the other would not exist. Furthermore, anyone attempting to produce at home should be a lot more worse off than they are if indeed there was The Way. Perhaps we could all do well to agree that the term "accurate", at least in our industry here is not an absolute. There are levels.

I'll say this, if we are talking about 99% of the threads here i.e. residential rooms... in looking at the two "major" CR theories (being lede and ne), Of those two, lede is a response that is, I believe, far more achievable. If only to a moderate level of the aforementioned 'accurate'. Is it achievable? Well not entirely... whose gonna flush mount? who's got an asymmetrical outer shell? Levels. Likewise, one may attempt a NE room in their basement, but who has the space allocation for meters depth of trapping? Levels.

To be fair, this thread was started with a question about diffusion. Isn't it the communities duty to explain the history of why we have gotten to where we are? Studies have been done linking accuracy to the effects of lede. Until studies are done to link accuracy to "piecemeal" strategies, isn't it in our best interest to at the very least use lede as a template? And if one were to have no interest in ISDs and diffusion should they not at the very least use NE's criteria as their template? In either case isn't attempting to achieve the highest level of our 'non-absolute vision of accuracy' the best we can possibly hope for?

[johndykstra]

What I find to be the most vexing issue in any school of thought is the idea of RT60. In any model you choose the goal is an even RT60... a measurement that isn't even accurate in small spaces?!?!

An uphill battle from the start if ever there was one.

[localhost127]

well put, john.

Originally Posted by johndykstra

What I find to be the most vexing issue in any school of thought is the idea of RT60. In any model you choose the goal is an even RT60... a measurement that isn't even accurate in small spaces?!?!

An uphill battle from the start if ever there was one.

and how many here advocating for the use of rt60 in these rooms are utilizing a proper omni-directional source (dodec)? and how many here are measuring rt60 past Dc?

[DanDan]

For either "school of thought" to claim the other can't be "accurate" is hogwash.

Thank you John. Well stated, and not just the above. I will leave the obtuse comment aside and assume that you wish for substantive debate.
Which particular aspect of Haas do you wish to bring to my attention?

Some say the trigger is a mechanism to put the primitive brain at ease, being able to hear your surroundings. Some say the brain is stressed by this trigger.

Most room designs share that same goal. They provide comfort reflections for us neanderthals!

Some say the occurrence of the trigger "tricks" the brain into viewing the ISD gap is even more anechoic in nature.

Credible IMHO. But as I said the ISD gap thing is a solution to a problem which I dispute the existence of. I easily hear reflections on a recorded source in very varied listening environments. And in modern multitracked recording the majority of sources tend to be close miced and dry.
I suggest there is no problem.
Clearly many currently working designers concur.
Whatever impairment or masking may arise due to lack of a strong gap, mix engineers are well capable of adapting and compensating.
Active listening is very different to passive untrained hearing.

Some may argue, that we as mixing engineers attempting to achieve a mix that will translate should probably do so in a room that has some semblance to the end user's room, that's to say with reflections... but controlled in a manner so as to represent the average room, but without sounding like any one room in particular. Clearly, some disagree.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Mastering Rooms lean that way.
However if it were simply valid without balancing issues we would simply mix in living rooms.
There is a balance to be struck. A path between speaker and ear free of reflections leads to very sure and quick sonic perception and decisions. Working in such environments, the mix engineer makes mental adjustments to ensure translation to the outside world.
A little help might not go astray. An early diffuse field may supply just that.


EDIT for modal and room decay measurement many of us recommend placing the speaker(s) on the floor in the corner(s).


DD

[johndykstra]

Originally Posted by DanDan

Thank you John. Well stated, and not just the above. I will leave the obtuse comment aside and assume that you wish for substantive debate.
Which particular aspect of Haas do you wish to bring to my attention?

It was the points I highlighted and you are responding too. Whether or not you subscribe to them does not confirm nor negate that the studies were done.


"Some say the trigger is a mechanism to put the primitive brain at ease, being able to hear your surroundings. Some say the brain is stressed by this trigger."

Originally Posted by DanDan

Most room designs share that same goal. They provide comfort reflections for us neanderthals!

But that's not the point. The creature comforts of chair squeaks and inner room dialog are (in theory) not enough. The audio you are mixing should be affected by the environment as well, or the brain is not sufficiently at ease.


"Some say the occurrence of the trigger "tricks" the brain into viewing the ISD gap is even more anechoic in nature."

Originally Posted by DanDan

Credible IMHO. But as I said the ISD gap thing is a solution to a problem which I dispute the existence of. I easily hear reflections on a recorded source in very varied listening environments. And in modern multitracked recording the majority of sources tend to be close miced and dry.
I suggest there is no problem.
Clearly many currently working designers concur.
Whatever impairment or masking may arise due to lack of a strong gap, mix engineers are well capable of adapting and compensating.
Active listening is very different to passive untrained hearing

Again. Levels. If the theory is credible, than the application of it should net a heightened sense of accuracy. The problem, or one of them as I see it, is there's no way to effectively compare designs. Far too many variables, and simply needing to commute from one design to the next is going to be too much time as to void any subjective comparisons. Can you mix without an ISD gap? Of course! 99.9% of people do it every day.


"Some may argue, that we as mixing engineers attempting to achieve a mix that will translate should probably do so in a room that has some semblance to the end user's room, that's to say with reflections... but controlled in a manner so as to represent the average room, but without sounding like any one room in particular. Clearly, some disagree."

Originally Posted by DanDan

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Mastering Rooms lean that way.
However if it were simply valid without balancing issues we would simply mix in living rooms.
There is a balance to be struck. A path between speaker and ear free of reflections leads to very sure and quick sonic perception and decisions. Working in such environments, the mix engineer makes mental adjustments to ensure translation to the outside world..

so if the path between speaker and ear should be free from reflections, by definition then after that point reflections should be introduced? You yourself just set a termination point. Should perhaps we attempt to control the subsequent reflections into a well formed return? Oh and the living room bit? Come on brother. The bolded portion of my previous statement was unread? Your typical living room will sound like that living room. That's exactly what we are attempting to avoid, without also sucking all of that out. A balancing act indeed

Originally Posted by DanDan

A little help might not go astray. An early diffuse field may supply just that.

Hilighted for clarity of reply.

But why do that Dan?!?!? There are psycho acoustic studies to suggest in fact that that is not the way. Why and how are you arbitrarily deciding that in fact those studies were wrong?

Originally Posted by DanDan

EDIT for modal and room decay measurement many of us recommend placing the speaker(s) on the floor in the corner(s).


DD

To my knowledge that doesn't increase the accuracy of RT60, but rather gives an accurate modal response as it negates, to a large degree, SBIR. Here we go, buckle up!

[DanDan]

There are psycho acoustic studies to suggest in fact that that is not the way.

Please state simply and directly which one(s) you are referring to if you wish me to include them in our discourse.
EDIT. As ever I find it totally unnecessary for one view to be 'wrong' for another to be correct.

EDIT, the statement suggests that studio designers who include early diffusion are in gross error.
This seems to say the very least highly unlikely. It seems more likely that there is research and testing behind this.
Including psychoacoustic study.

I think it is possible to compare designs. A binaural recording would be interesting. 4.0 even more so.
As I said I sometimes turn on my rear full range speakers. Even with delay there is definitely a pleasing envelopment.
With delay or an IR reverb this can be greatly enhanced. This can easily be tweaked to provide a rear reverberant field.
Cool. Accurate though? Accurate to what?
How on earth would this help to hear what is on the recording somehow 'better'.


RT60 doesn't exist in typical small rooms. Modal resonance dominates the persistence/decay of sound in the space. These modes are best and most equally driven in tricorners. There is also a very welcome free LF level boost.

[johndykstra]

Dan, I'm not on my primary computer today. Different office. My bookmark bar here is empty, but I really don't see the need to link articles that have been linked a bazillion times already by SAC and other lede proponents. I know you've seen these studies. Why must they be presented again? Besides, they will be rather long....

Comparing the designs by listening alone isn't enough. What are we to do? Listen for accuracy? That should be fun. Work need be executed in them. It's the work and it's subsequent translation to the real world that is the deciding factor. In that, no IR, or dummy head listening party can decide the flow of work, and whether or not an ISD termination aided or hindered your translation.

How can the termination make it more accurate? Clearly it's debatable. We talked briefly about a heightened sense of anechoic ISD response. It's in that. There's also parts of the study that seem to link a better localization with the introduction of the termination. There's that too. Then there's the bit about the brain feeling unstressed. More quality hours at the console?

[johndykstra]

Originally Posted by DanDan

EDIT, the statement suggests that studio designers who include early diffusion are in gross error.
This seems to say the very least highly unlikely. It seems more likely that there is research and testing behind this.
Including psychoacoustic study

Well that's harsh. Gross error? No. Not subscribing to the ideas behind lede? More than likely, but not necessarily, so long as the ETC response looks correct. I think most designers if presented with an ETC measurement of the room and found spikes displayed by diffusors, they'd either move them, replace them, or perhaps they like where they sit in the Msec time frame.

Any studies that I have been made aware of that include early diffuse reflections have been riddled with the words "pleasing effect". Quantify that please if you will. Or rather link the studies you are referring to.

If I didn't make my position clear a few posts back, I believe there are plenty of ways to skin the CR cat... perhaps I should have included more than two examples, but I though the point would hit home without listing all models. All will have varying levels of accuracy. Some NE rooms far more accurate than some lede... and vice versa. Likewise with CID, FTB, Boggies,...etc....etc....

{EDIT}
McTwins room for example. Ripe with broken rules ala lede. That said, I'll bet that room would be a joy to mix in. As accurate as NE or LEDE...etc...? Dunno. I'd need an invitation and I don't see one coming in the near future

[Mctwins]

Originally Posted by johndykstra

Well that's harsh. Gross error? No. Not subscribing to the ideas behind lede? More than likely, but not necessarily, so long as the ETC response looks correct. I think most designers if presented with an ETC measurement of the room and found spikes displayed by diffusors, they'd either move them, replace them, or perhaps they like where they sit in the Msec time frame.

Any studies that I have been made aware of that include early diffuse reflections have been riddled with the words "pleasing effect". Quantify that please if you will. Or rather link the studies you are referring to.

If I didn't make my position clear a few posts back, I believe there are plenty of ways to skin the CR cat... perhaps I should have included more than two examples, but I though the point would hit home without listing all models. All will have varying levels of accuracy. Some NE rooms far more accurate than some lede... and vice versa. Likewise with CID, FTB, Boggies,...etc....etc....

{EDIT}
McTwins room for example. Ripe with broken rules ala lede. That said, I'll bet that room would be a joy to mix in. As accurate as NE or LEDE...etc...? Dunno. I'd need an invitation and I don't see one coming in the near future

John...

Please tell me what is an correct ETC?
Explain the second bolded one for me. What is Ripe??

An invitation from me??

[johndykstra]

A correct ETC would depend on your intended vision. A lede etc should show a direct sound level/a significant drop off for a determined amount of time/followed by a dense, gradually falling, high intensity cluster of diffuse reflections. A NE ETC Should show a direct signal, followed by a significant drop off of all subsequent reflections. Most/all designs I am aware of frown upon singular strong reflections in a sea of less loud ones.

"ripe" as used in my statement refers to an abundance of "rules" broken were you following lede criteria. Followed by a compliment. I hinted that I'd have no way of guessing how your room translates without an invitation. As in let me come work in it. I think you're a bit far for me regardless.

[DanDan]

I think most designers if presented with an ETC measurement of the room and found spikes displayed by diffusors, they'd either move them, replace them, or perhaps they like where they sit in the Msec time frame.

Good diffusion should surely result in a nicely dense cluster rather than spikes?

Harsh? Moi? Hardly in context here.....
John, over time I have of course read various theories. You presented nice little snips of several. I have dealt with them individually.
They don't add either.
I have never seen a convincing hypothesis as to how any of the phenomena alluded to but strangely not directly quoted by anyone here yet might enhance the function of the ear/brain. If you or anyone has a particular one in mind I am all ears.

As the research is not published I obviously cannot reveal it here.
But I strongly recommend you take a look over at Thomas' forum at PRW.
You will find FTB is not so secret and the inclusion of early Diffusion is no whim.
Boggy has stated his own case. A look at Hedback's gallery will readily show his views on the matter.


DD

[Mctwins]

Originally Posted by johndykstra

A correct ETC would depend on your intended vision. A lede etc should show a direct sound level/a significant drop off for a determined amount of time/followed by a dense, gradually falling, high intensity cluster of diffuse reflections. A NE ETC Should show a direct signal, followed by a significant drop off of all subsequent reflections. Most/all designs I am aware of frown upon singular strong reflections in a sea of less loud ones.

"ripe" as used in my statement refers to an abundance of "rules" broken were you following lede criteria. Followed by a compliment. I hinted that I'd have no way of guessing how your room translates without an invitation. As in let me come work in it. I think you're a bit far for me regardless.

Thanks for the clarification.

[johndykstra]

Yes Dan

Agreed. On all accounts. Including my need for convincing of the psychoacoutic response to lede.... it's a bit spooky. And appears to be entirely speech driven. Not sure how that translates over to full range dynamic audio. But to be honest, these studies while I can't understand, are really all I have to go off of. So........

What we can't seem to land together on is which of all of these great models can be, in any tangible sense, applied to the recommendations to Joe Blow bedroom?

Are you suggesting that they should get decay times so small in the high AND low frequencies that require meters deep trapping as in FTB and NE rooms? Is that feasible?


Because of the liveliness retained in an RFZ, it's far more likely to achieve an even decay time when we are allowing a bit more Msecs to do so with. Doable. To a potentially higher level at least?

Again. Bedroom guy likely wants a little life to his room. If for no other reason it's the only room he's got, and his guitar sounds like turds when dry. So Diffusion it is. If we're going down that road, why break from widely accepted topology? My studies may perhaps only be alluded to here, but yours appear unpublished entirely. If there's a horse in this race I think the decision is clear for the 99% of us without all the facts. Further more, the amount of visible diffusion in an FTB room is so small. Liveliness of speaker response is clearly not the end goal here. SO we're talking about two entirely different things here. Neither more right IMO than the other.

ETCs of Boggys designs show it far closer to NE than to lede. Early reflections from such lossy diffusors is an interesting idea. I really want to hear those rooms.

[Mctwins]

Originally Posted by DanDan

Good diffusion should surely result in a nicely dense cluster rather than spikes?

Harsh? Moi? Hardly in context here.....
John, over time I have of course read various theories. You presented nice little snips of several. I have dealt with them individually.
They don't add either.
I have never seen a convincing hypothesis as to how any of the phenomena alluded to but strangely not directly quoted by anyone here yet might enhance the function of the ear/brain. If you or anyone has a particular one in mind I am all ears.

As the research is not published I obviously cannot reveal it here.
But I strongly recommend you take a look over at Thomas' forum at PRW.
You will find FTB is not so secret and the inclusion of early Diffusion is no whim.
Boggy has stated his own case. A look at Hedback's gallery will readily show his views on the matter.


DD

Yes and Matts from SMT AB has stated his.

[DanDan]

John, I would find following a model a bit restricting. Maybe an actress..... Halle Berry sure.
Small room guerilla acoustics can make use of many little innovations and fresh approaches.
DIY VPR instead of impossibly deep fibre. Space Couplers and Lath arrangements instead of strict diffusion. A bit of RFZ thinking in a hard cloud perhaps. A bit of Digital Room Correction....
Must run, playing a gig now....

DD

[johndykstra]

Originally Posted by DanDan

John, I would find following a model a bit restricting. Maybe an actress..... Halle Berry sure.
Small room guerilla acoustics can make use of many little innovations and fresh approaches.
DIY VPR instead of impossibly deep fibre. Space Couplers and Lath arrangements instead of strict diffusion. A bit of RFZ thinking in a hard cloud perhaps. A bit of Digital Room Correction....
Must run, playing a gig now....

DD

If you don't define your goal, then how do you know when to stop? or whether to do this and/or that? It seems if you plan to go through the trouble of taking measurements, which you are clearly a proponent of, why not attempt to hit a target other than even modal response?

[localhost127]

Originally Posted by Jens Eklund

And now for something completely different

Originally Posted by SAC

The problem is that all we get are claims of superiority to LEDE!

We get no objective measurements and ETCs, and NO new substantial corroborating psycho-acoustical research.

If we want to debate the subject, present the evidence! Then we can talk! In fact, THEN we will have something substantial to talk about!

And in this regards the silence has been deafening.

Its nice to make sweeping general claims. But what would be nicer would be to present objective substantiated evidence that supports their claims. Such would be welcome - and a BIG change!

Until then, we are stuck debating someone's feelings and/or a marketing brochure.

exactly!

[johndykstra]

The problem is there can never really be a clear winner here.

We're walking a very slippery line when we are discussing accuracy, because ultimately we are talking about art. Those two don't jive well together.

It'd be lovely if one could bisect themselves and sit one half each in two control rooms with the exact same gear and the exact same material and see what gets spit out the other end.

Unfortunately, you can't even do studio A today and studio B tomorrow because studio B is tainted with decisions made in studio A, and outside of that, I believe mood plays a huge role in the finished product. I may be crabby tomorrow. Or hungry. Again. No way to compare objectively.

Moreover, let's say you could some how compare a legitimately unbiased and fair mix done from two rooms. Now what? Is one supposed to be objectively better than the other? Art.

Who cares.

[DanDan]

If you don't define your goal, then how do you know when to stop? or whether to do this and/or that? It seems if you plan to go through the trouble of taking measurements, which you are clearly a proponent of, why not attempt to hit a target other than even modal response?

Practically speaking, money and energy often define stop.
Targets? Mix translation surely. A decent frequency response is up there. The translate curve seems very much overlooked and in the case of many active monitors costs nothing to implement.
I would target the decay spectrum rather than modal focus but that can be the same thing. BBC required that no third octave decay vary from it's neighbours by more than 10% (LF excepted)
DIY VPRs don't seem particularly expensive, difficult, or big.
Targeting the ability to hear reflections on the occasional source recorded in a (rarely available) live room seems like a very odd priority in context IMHO.


Alton Everest wisely mentioned how studio design is part Art part Science. Well reminded John.
Ultimately translation is the Grail IMO.
It would be impossible to measure that because it is a symbiosis of room and Mix engineer. Who knows where the room stops and the brain/talent takes over.
Balance is key. Thats what we do. Science and empirical evidence and developed sonic taste are all useful. If we could leave behind mendacious statements of 'better' or 'more accurate' or 'you don't understand' etc. etc. we could have a real civil discussion. That is currently a problem on GS. Which has led to some rather ghostly absences.

Aside;- I still propose it is perfectly feasible to 'be there'. A binaural recording of a playback of a reference track (I favour Jenny Warrens remastered Bird on a Wire) done in Boggy's, Manifold, Blackbird, or any other room would be most welcome. Even better 4.0.
This is all about sound after all.

DD

[johndykstra]

We're not so different in our opinions Dan. But we do differ in our approach to those who believe the idea of models and defined targets and how we interact with those individuals.

I say shoot for the stars. There's no need not to. And in this case by "stars" I mean well documented pyscho acoustical research. Until someone can present a "better" case not to, I don't see why anyone shouldn't try.

Let's say I give a go at an RFZ design. The criteria are well established. If I don't hit my termination target, I still have (hopfully) a wonderfully live environment, just no psychoacoustic trigger. A great room, that doesn't satisfy a problem you don't believe exists, yet you do give credibility to the idea. No harm no foul? Will I ever know if I do hit the termination target if it's made all the difference? Probably not. I certainly would never attempt to "certify" it. Who would? That sounds expensive.

You say modern design has moved beyond the lede. Perhaps. But 90% of the studios I'm seeing pictures of are in the very least drawing from it, to varying degrees. Designers putting their own stamp on it sure. But back wall diffusion is here to stay. It got there from lede, and it was placed there for a specific reason. I intend to attempt to hit it.

[johndykstra]

I'm getting relatively decent mix translation currently operating out of the corner of my live room. I'm breaking so many of our "rules" it frightning. What I hear out of the monitors is more or less what i hear in the car. Sure I check bass with cans a bit, but my live room is quite well balanced. Save for a bit of extra decay in the 150hz zone.

Does translation necessarily equate to good decision making at the console? If I had a better ISD gap and termination would my mixes not only still translate, but might also the creativty of my workflow improve? My decisions in regards to dynamics? My stereo field a bit more textured? Dunno. I hope so.

[DanDan]

If we include context John, I would expect full coincidence in our thinking.

But again, I have to say, I cannot reply with an opinion on psychoacoustic research unless you name the specific one or aspect.
The one I am particularly interested in would attempt to show how LEDE designs cause 'better' or 'more accurate' hearing / perception.

Proponents of this old technique continue to refer to a generality of 'well known' etc. etc. Requests for specifics have drawn considerable ire.
Amazing really.

New build, money, would I use some RFZ ideas? Mad not to.
But I don't see much soffit and splayed wall action at the Prosumer level.
Context.

If there are enough diffusors available, by all means try them on top of the back wall absorption. If resources are limited I think it would be wise to experiment with side and overhead scattering or even diffusion.

BTW have you ever actually tried my Rear Speaker suggestions?
If one already has Rear Speakers, this seems a very cheap very defined way to achieve some ass tickling.

Modern designs that I see draw from all of the past good stuff.
And the new stuff, quite a bit of which I have learned of here at GS.
Simple developments. DIY VPR from Gernot. Hard Clouds from gullfo.
Use of Couplers and DRC from Jeff.

DD