Login / Register
 
DIY Sound Diffusers—Free Blueprints—Slim, Optimized DIY Diffuser Designs (+Fractals)
New Reply
Subscribe
#121
14th November 2012
Old 14th November 2012
  #121
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,310

localhost127 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpusOfTrolls View Post
In my own personal testing with headphones and my DAW I really felt that diffusion under 400hz is unnecessary and creates too much mud which masks the critical dynamics of that frequency range.
i dont understand this test; how are you testing "diffusion under 400hz" with headphones?


Quote:
Originally Posted by OpusOfTrolls View Post
noticed a drawing of an RFZ control room that had a LF diffusive rear wall. I said to myself how could this be any better than a dead wall? The diffuser doesn't absorb (AFAIK), but it does minimize the interference of the first reflection. Knowing physics there will be another reflection soon after, and I doubt it would be very predictable. But could it be beneficial?
are you insisting the total specular response of the RFZ model is casual?
Arqen
Thread Starter
#122
14th November 2012
Old 14th November 2012
  #122
Gear addict
 
Arqen's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 309

Thread Starter
Arqen is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpusOfTrolls View Post
Massive diffusers would break up LF resonance, but that is not an argument for their adoption.

I have read the Master Handbook of Acoustics by Alton Everest and on one particular section, noticed a drawing of an RFZ control room that had a LF diffusive rear wall. I said to myself how could this be any better than a dead wall? The diffuser doesn't absorb (AFAIK), but it does minimize the interference of the first reflection. Knowing physics there will be another reflection soon after, and I doubt it would be very predictable. But could it be beneficial?

Think about the wavelength of a LF soundwave, and how long it takes to actually realize the dynamic. Could adding temporal diffusion to a slow to begin with frequency band make the sound any better? It might, but I will say the effect is narrow in respect to the source audio. It will modify the dynamics and create masking in the frequency band. This is obviously not beneficial to critical listening, but I have heard many records with LF reverberation that without wouldn't have had the same conveyance.

So I do believe it is a matter of taste. In my own personal testing with headphones and my DAW I really felt that diffusion under 400hz is unnecessary and creates too much mud which masks the critical dynamics of that frequency range.

I agree with you, but note that I was not making an argument for massive diffusers as an alternative for absorption in a control room.

We were talking about his live room, and simply exploring the idea of large diffusers. While they are not a replacement for trapping, I think the concept is worth exploring in the live room because they would break up LF resonance while keeping energy in the room. Anyway, I was not trying to recommended this as a solution--I do agree that it's probably more effective, more predictable and safer (in terms of time and $) to focus on diffusion over 400 Hz.
#123
14th November 2012
Old 14th November 2012
  #123
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,323

OpusOfTrolls is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arqen View Post
I agree with you, but note that I was not making an argument for massive diffusers as an alternative for absorption in a control room.

We were talking about his live room, and simply exploring the idea of large diffusers. While they are not a replacement for trapping, I think the concept is worth exploring in the live room because they would break up LF resonance while keeping energy in the room. Anyway, I was not trying to recommended this as a solution--I do agree that it's probably more effective, more predictable and safer (in terms of time and $) to focus on diffusion over 400 Hz.
Sorry for my confusion, sometimes I don't backtrack to find context. LF Diffusion in a recording scenario would be a good thing IMO.
#124
14th November 2012
Old 14th November 2012
  #124
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,323

OpusOfTrolls is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post
i dont understand this test; how are you testing "diffusion under 400hz" with headphones?




are you insisting the total specular response of the RFZ model is casual?
I HPF a reverberation plugin in parallel with the dry signal, and listen to it. Then I ask myself, could this reverb sound excellent on any source material?

---

Isn't all of it casual? What type of 'casual' are you referring to?
#125
14th November 2012
Old 14th November 2012
  #125
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,692

Jens Eklund is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpusOfTrolls View Post
I HPF a reverberation plugin in parallel with the dry signal, and listen to it. Then I ask myself, could this reverb sound excellent on any source material?
?

Don´t confuse diffusion with reverb.
#126
14th November 2012
Old 14th November 2012
  #126
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,323

OpusOfTrolls is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens Eklund View Post
?

Don´t confuse diffusion with reverb.
A reverb unit with good diffusion and true stereo is almost the same, is it not? It is all the same waveforms.
#127
14th November 2012
Old 14th November 2012
  #127
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,692

Jens Eklund is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpusOfTrolls View Post
A reverb unit with good diffusion and true stereo is almost the same, is it not? It is all the same waveforms.
No.
#128
14th November 2012
Old 14th November 2012
  #128
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,323

OpusOfTrolls is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens Eklund View Post
No.
FWIW a Schroeder reverb is nowhere near realistic, nor are many feedback designs. Maybe you are not considering the other varieties?
#129
14th November 2012
Old 14th November 2012
  #129
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,692

Jens Eklund is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpusOfTrolls View Post
FWIW a Schroeder reverb is nowhere near realistic, nor are many feedback designs. Maybe you are not considering the other varieties?
“Schroeder reverb”? Please enlighten me.*

Don´t get me wrong; I’m not disagreeing with your general conclusion that diffusion below about 400 Hz or so (room size dependent naturally) is not that useful. It´s the way you came to that conclusion that bothers me.
Do you realize that even talking about reverb below 400 Hz assumes an enormous space?


* EDIT: ok, you´re referring to the artificial reverberation suggested by Schroeder. Either way, to use a reverb plugin thinking that you simulate the effects of diffusion in a small acoustic space is just not right.
#130
14th November 2012
Old 14th November 2012
  #130
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,323

OpusOfTrolls is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens Eklund
“Schroeder reverb”? Please enlighten me.

Don´t get me wrong; I’m not disagreeing with your general conclusion that diffusion below about 400 Hz or so (room size dependent naturally) is not that useful. It´s the way you came to that conclusion that bothers me.
Do you realize that even talking about reverb below 400 Hz assumes an enormous space?
..which can be simulated with DSP listening through headphones. But you need to use the right algorithm.

Here is a description of a Schroeder reverberator: https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/pasp...rberators.html

It would be very difficult for a DSP engineer to make one of these to simulate a real space. They are more likely to simulate the axial conditions with some phase randomization thrown in. It also does not account for any binaural effects unless told to do so, which may or may not be a realistic approximation.
#131
14th November 2012
Old 14th November 2012
  #131
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,692

Jens Eklund is offline
See my edit.
#132
14th November 2012
Old 14th November 2012
  #132
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,323

OpusOfTrolls is offline
There is only a handful of reverbs that come close to 'real'. I don't think I can name any that actually fulfill every detail. But you have a solid argument Jens, because even if the recording held every nuance of a space's diffusion and echo, there would still be the HRTF absent, which simulated cannot even come close to the real thing.

In my defense, I only use the reverb to approximate masking and dynamic. It was only the other day I realized the signifigance of any binaural effect.
#133
14th November 2012
Old 14th November 2012
  #133
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,310

localhost127 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpusOfTrolls View Post
I HPF a reverberation plugin in parallel with the dry signal, and listen to it. Then I ask myself, could this reverb sound excellent on any source material?
are you seriously making an attempt to consider headphones with a form of decay as an apples vs apples comparison with respect to diffusive surfaces within a
bounded acoustical space? oh, dear...


"I really felt that diffusion under 400hz is unnecessary and creates too much mud which masks the critical dynamics of that frequency range."

is this the type of logic breakdown where people think that by playing "reverb" (decay FX) from their speakers that magically the energy emitted from their source suddenly has statistical energy flows instead of specular wavelets?


Quote:
Originally Posted by OpusOfTrolls View Post
Isn't all of it casual? What type of 'casual' are you referring to?
...
#134
14th November 2012
Old 14th November 2012
  #134
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,323

OpusOfTrolls is offline
#135
14th November 2012
Old 14th November 2012
  #135
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,310

localhost127 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens Eklund View Post
Either way, to use a reverb plugin thinking that you simulate the effects of diffusion in a small acoustic space is just not right.
+1

playing a recording of a reverberant sound-field (or reverb FX) doesn't suddenly make the energy flows in your small acoustical space statistical.
#136
14th November 2012
Old 14th November 2012
  #136
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,310

localhost127 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpusOfTrolls View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127
are you insisting the total specular response of the RFZ model is casual?
ca·su·al/?kaZHo?o?l/
Adjective:
Relaxed and unconcerned.
Noun:
A person who does something irregularly: "a number of casuals became regular customers".
Synonyms:
accidental - incidental - fortuitous - occasional

the diffusers were not just randomly placed with respect to the total specular response of RFZ. it is not "accidental" or just haphazard... there is actually some thought behind it...
#137
14th November 2012
Old 14th November 2012
  #137
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,323

OpusOfTrolls is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post
+1

playing a recording of a reverberant sound-field (or reverb FX) doesn't suddenly make the energy flows in your small acoustical space statistical.
Did you even read what I wrote? I am using HEADPHONES. That pretty much nulls out the ability of my small acoustical space to interfere with the signal.
#138
14th November 2012
Old 14th November 2012
  #138
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,310

localhost127 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpusOfTrolls View Post
Did you even read what I wrote? I am using HEADPHONES. That pretty much nulls out the ability of my small acoustical space to interfere with the signal.
yes, i read what you wrote.

you're equating headphones + an FX and attempting to compare apples to apples with "diffusion":

you said:

"I really felt that diffusion under 400hz is unnecessary and creates too much mud which masks the critical dynamics of that frequency range."

i asked in this post: DIY Sound Diffusers—Free Blueprints—Slim, Optimized DIY Diffuser Designs (+Fractals)
"how are you creating diffusion with your headphones"
#139
15th November 2012
Old 15th November 2012
  #139
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,323

OpusOfTrolls is offline
The simulation of the result of diffusion is the end effect of the acoustical function. While the model of the simulation is limited by the sound source, the result is within range of an approximation of a few key attributes that make the real system what it is.

My use of the word diffusion was incorrect, but I don't run circles in my head all day when I slap on some reverb and call the sound 'Simulated diffused acoustical interference wavelet manifold transfer function response'.
#140
15th November 2012
Old 15th November 2012
  #140
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,310

localhost127 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpusOfTrolls View Post
the result is within range of an approximation of a few key attributes that make the real system what it is.
we'll agree to disagree.
#141
15th November 2012
Old 15th November 2012
  #141
Lives for gear
 
Schaap's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 530

Schaap is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arqen View Post
If you don't mind me asking, where in your room are you planning to mount the diffusers? Or did you just build them for experimentation?

Thanks again,
Tim
Three modules in the control room partial instead of the 'flutterfree'QRDs and some modules as 'mobilediffuser' for recording against the wall or on the floor.
I've build dozens of all kind diffusers esp. PRD(skylines) which I like very much and there's not much space left, guess I'm addicted to diffusion. and I like to do experiments.

One thing that was remarkable IMO with your stepped diffuser was the good transient or attack response(though quite normal with diffusion) despite the small dimensions of my DIY, example in the piano samples.
Attached Files
File Type: wav piano1a without.wav (2.33 MB, 87 views) File Type: wav piano1a with.wav (2.34 MB, 78 views)
__________________
"Poetry and music"
http://tinyurl.com/cmtwkp

We say we shall not meet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4BWwpKTIRI

"People who are absolute sure make the most mistakes,
All theories of today are based on knowledge of yesterday" H. S. '88
Arqen
Thread Starter
#142
16th November 2012
Old 16th November 2012
  #142
Gear addict
 
Arqen's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 309

Thread Starter
Arqen is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schaap View Post
Three modules in the control room partial instead of the 'flutterfree'QRDs and some modules as 'mobilediffuser' for recording against the wall or on the floor.
I've build dozens of all kind diffusers esp. PRD(skylines) which I like very much and there's not much space left, guess I'm addicted to diffusion. and I like to do experiments.

One thing that was remarkable IMO with your stepped diffuser was the good transient or attack response(though quite normal with diffusion) despite the small dimensions of my DIY, example in the piano samples.
Fantastic, Schaap! Yes, while these diffusers are not deep, they are efficient at spatial scattering (as you can somewhat visualize from the video below):



If you get a chance, I'd love to see some photos of the diffusers in position in your room, or photos of any of the test configurations. E.g., photos of the "profiled modulation" (when the modules are oriented at different depths) would help people visualize what it all looks.

Thanks so much for doing these tests.

Tim
Arqen
Thread Starter
#143
16th November 2012
Old 16th November 2012
  #143
Gear addict
 
Arqen's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 309

Thread Starter
Arqen is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by rez View Post
thank you very much guys!

would the b2-frac array of five elements, at 2,1m width, perform like the n-36 or better if mounted in the suggested "0 50 60 50 0" order at different depths? if that mounting will lift the performance above the n-36 we don´t mind a little more work since it is still only straight cuts and mills.

today we had the carpenter at our studio to discuss the work and the materials, but since it is my duty to provide the detailed plans for the build and we have some other things to do first, it is no problem to switch to another design! so i probably will propose the build of a n-36 diffusor for the back wall instead.

one more question: how is the performance of the n-36 above 4000hz and is this of any significant relevance in a smallish room like ours? and what if we would put fractals on just some of the wells of the n-36 diffusor? could that be of any benefit to spread the performance to higher frequencies?

peace, rez
I don't know exactly how well the array will perform if mounted like that, because I've not tested it. I'm confident it will perform much better than it does now, but the n=36 stepped diffuser might still perform better.

Here's why I'm confident that profiled modulations (mounting modules at different heights) will boost the performance: Using the A1-LF design, I tested a variety of profiled modulations, including a 7-module low frequency fractal modulation, which I'll post an image of as soon as I upload it to my server.

I've not tested the n=36 stepped diffuser above 4000 Hz. Usually, the highest frequency of interest for predicting room acoustics acoustics is about 5500 Hz. This is just a hypothesis, but I expect the fractal diffuser (with a good profiled modulation applied to it) to outperform the n=36 stepped diffuser at higher frequencies (e.g., 10000 Hz).

Sure, you could put fractal-like cells on the n=36 stepped diffuser. I'm not sure if it would be worth the time and effort, but it would look neat and it would improve the high frequency diffusion (at the very least, it will create more HF scattering due to the increase in geometric complexity).

Hope this answers your questions! Does everything I've said make sense?
#144
16th November 2012
Old 16th November 2012
  #144
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,692

Jens Eklund is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arqen View Post
I've attached performance reports (pdf files) for the n = 36 optimized stepped diffuser.
The well width is 59 mm, and the sequence of well depths are given in the performance reports.

Unfortunately, I don't have the Reflex file because I was using a demo version of Reflex (it does not allow saving).

But I hope this helps!

Tim
Thanks Tim.

Looks like a good performer:

DIY Sound Diffusers—Free Blueprints—Slim, Optimized DIY Diffuser Designs (+Fractals)-opt-n36-two-periods-4-13-meters.gifDIY Sound Diffusers—Free Blueprints—Slim, Optimized DIY Diffuser Designs (+Fractals)-opt-n36-one-period-2-065-meters.gif
rez
#145
16th November 2012
Old 16th November 2012
  #145
rez
Gear addict
 
rez's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 387

rez is offline
hey guys,

if i build a n36 stepped diffusor like in the provided pdf, should there be fins between the wells?
that might be a stupid question, but i´ve never built a diffusor and there are so many different designs out there.
i saw designs where between each well there was a fin of the depth of the whole diffusor and there were designs that had just the stepped wells.

which one is right for this build?

thank you, rez
__________________
here is some of my own music and some tracks that i have mixed: https://soundcloud.com/blackcapsound
#146
16th November 2012
Old 16th November 2012
  #146
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,692

Jens Eklund is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by rez View Post
hey guys,

if i build a n36 stepped diffusor like in the provided pdf, should there be fins between the wells?
Stepped diffuser = no fins.
#147
17th November 2012
Old 17th November 2012
  #147
Gear nut
 
unqlenol's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

unqlenol is offline
Hi Tim and everyone.

Thanks for sharing all this.
Been reading this great thread and would like some opinions please.

I plan on making a rear wall diffusor for my little studio.
I was going to make a proper QRD from wood.
Then I saw it was going to cost me too much time and money.
Then, using QRdude, I designed a N17, with no fins, 25mm well widths, 20 cm deep. Seemed cool (except for being finless and for being made out of 16kg/m3 eps as opposed to a higher density eps).

Now I am looking at Tims simple blueprint and wondering:
Would that simple design be a better way forward for me? It would cost a similar amount to the EPS N17.

Or another way to look at it:
Would I be better off making Tim's simple 7 step design with 4 periods (I need to cover up to 1.8m of wall width)
OR
Would I be better of making a long 'high N', low density EPS stepped diffusor with narrow wells?

BTW, I was planning on coating the EPS with some tough water based polyurethane paint to create a very hard surface. A denser EPS increases the cost exponentially down here in South Africa.

TIA for any advice.

Nolan
#148
17th November 2012
Old 17th November 2012
  #148
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,692

Jens Eklund is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by unqlenol View Post
Then, using QRdude, I designed a N17, with no fins,
QRDude can only predict (roughly) the performance of real QRDs (with fins i o w). Removing the fins will result in unpredictable drastically reduced performance. In order to make a finless design, you need to simulate the shape using BEM/FEM/FDTD (Reflex from AFMG being on example) that can accurately predict the actual performance.
#149
17th November 2012
Old 17th November 2012
  #149
Gear maniac
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: Montreal
Posts: 274

cosmik_debris is offline
hey guys,

thx for the help. i think i'm just gonna mount a wood wall for its aesthetic properties and then treat the room accordingly with trapping and possibly diffusers after the fact. simpler idea...better results.
Arqen
Thread Starter
#150
17th November 2012
Old 17th November 2012
  #150
Gear addict
 
Arqen's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 309

Thread Starter
Arqen is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens Eklund View Post
QRDude can only predict (roughly) the performance of real QRDs (with fins i o w). Removing the fins will result in unpredictable drastically reduced performance. In order to make a finless design, you need to simulate the shape using BEM/FEM/FDTD (Reflex from AFMG being on example) that can accurately predict the actual performance.
+1
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Ethan Winer / Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc
86
Riddler / Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc
18
Soundproof / Post Production forum!
6
DaleNixon / Low End Theory
14
nuendoness / Low End Theory
15

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.