The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
The Titanic, room curves and other GS style OT wanderings
Old 26th August 2018
  #61
Gear Addict
 
ReDRuMx's Avatar
Here are better screenshots... Each screenshot shows the same measurement, but with different gating.

DISCLAIMER: The FR curve on these measurements is crap, because we were measuring decay times, so the speaker was crappy, and we didn't really spend too much time on finding the best spot for FR. But this really isn't that relevant here, I think.
Attached Thumbnails
The Titanic, room curves and other GS style OT wanderings-hall-untreated.jpg   The Titanic, room curves and other GS style OT wanderings-hall-treated.jpg   The Titanic, room curves and other GS style OT wanderings-domestic-room-treated.jpg   The Titanic, room curves and other GS style OT wanderings-domestic-room-untreated.jpg  
Old 26th August 2018
  #62
Gear Guru
Red Herring

Red, thanks for all that work, but I think we are comparing like with like when referring to the anomaly.

It is well known and stated by even opposing proponents here that CRs often didn't and don't work.
Thomas claims it is incompetence and Charlatans, but won't name them or the studios. Nor has he stated the performance error he reckons on. His focus seems be more in the structure and design. OK, different strokes.
I am focussed on the performance, a drivers point of view. The common error is that the erroneous ones sound way too bright.
I have never encountered the opposite.
EBU, Boggy, etc. etc. etc. have been for decades and are, well aware of this and apply a remedial HF roll off.
The New York Curve.



TJ has stated his desired, indeed guaranteed FR specs, which are extremely tight and with extended spectrum. It seems well suited to EDM and other forms of 'Music' with Hyped LF.
Indeed with that Hyped LF in the recording, say an extra 4-6dB below 150Hz, plus similar again with the subs, and some Hearing Damage, the slope of the actually heard noise is way way more Tilted than B&K. Worth remembering the Vinyl couldn't handle the Bass, Digital can.

Red, I have been thinking on your comments. My work has been and is almost universally with real natural sounds. Instruments and voices. Live mixing is a large element of what I do, with again 'acoustic' music. So my 'taste' is highly refined towards the natural.
As my work has been used extensively in Hi Fi Review and equipment design, I guess one could say I have a very very 'average' taste.....LOL
I am sure there are many with a different 'voicing'. And hearing damage at much younger ages.
Ultimately I hope fact is not obscured by tire kicking hypothesists here. The only one with actual experience of making records seems to be danthony. Subscribers to SuperCar Monthly, who have yet to pass a Driving Test.

The key to Translation is the Game of Inverse. If your mixes are dull in the real world, turn down the tweeters.
Not enough bass in the real world? turn it down in the CR or block the reflex ports, or some combo.
Too much bass in the real world, crank it up in the CR. Too wide in the real world, widen your speakers, check on headphones.
Too much Vocal and other centre, a Nashville Mix in the real world.... Speakers are too far apart, or you need to add Canopener Studio to your Cans chain.


DD
Attached Thumbnails
The Titanic, room curves and other GS style OT wanderings-2.png   The Titanic, room curves and other GS style OT wanderings-1.png  

Last edited by DanDan; 26th August 2018 at 06:28 PM..
Old 26th August 2018
  #63
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
Again:

Acoustics Issue
1
Share
Old 26th August 2018
  #64
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
TJ has stated his desired, indeed guaranteed FR specs, which are extremely tight and with extended spectrum. It seems well suited to EDM and other forms of 'Music' with Hyped LF.
Indeed with that Hyped LF in the recording, say an extra 4-6dB below 150Hz, plus similar again with the subs, and some Hearing Damage, the slope of the actually heard noise is way way more Tilted than B&K.
You got the numbers wrong.

It's ca. +3.5dB @ 26Hz, +0dB @ 150Hz no subs.
*Up to* +6dB @ 26Hz, +0dB @ 150Hz (total) with stereo subs, kicking in under 70Hz.
Steady slope up from 150Hz to 26Hz. It usually rolls-off fairly gently from there.

Not "say an extra 4-6dB below 150Hz, plus similar again with the subs (so +8dB to +12dB! - more than twice what I mentioned) below 150Hz" as you suggest.

Flat on-axis MF and HF response otherwise.

I'll let the engineers know that apparently they're all deaf.
Maybe for the time being we should remove all these non DanDan approved B&K curve non-compliant mixes and masters off the shelves and the internet servers - in the interest of preserving future generations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens Eklund
Again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd E. Toole
"The movie industry has decided that the steady-state sound should be flat below 2 kHz, most of the music/audio industry has decided that a flat direct sound is the norm. The latter has the advantage of agreeing with natural hearing of live (unamplified) acoustical events."
3
Share
Old 26th August 2018
  #65
Gear Guru
Misinterpretation

Quote:
Indeed with that Hyped LF in the recording, say an extra 4-6dB below 150Hz.
Thomas please try reading that sentence again now that two words are bolded. Do you understand now? I was obviously estimating the 'Hype' and adding it to your 'exaggerated' + Subs provision. Overall that section of my post is concurring with your suggesting that the spectrum of music has shifted downwards.

Please do not make light or insult out of younger Hearing Loss.
Quote:
Research shows that over the last 10 years, the percentage of second graders with hearing loss has increased by 280%, while hearing loss for eighth graders has increased over 400%
Hearing Loss Statistics | The Hearing Loss Clinic

Dr. Sean Olive:-

Quote:
The preferred in-room loudspeaker response is a smooth curve from 20 to 20 kHz with about a 9-10 dB downward tilted slope. We agree that a flat in-room response for a loudspeaker will sound too bright and thin.
Read more at An Acoustic Basis for the Harman Listener Target Curve | InnerFidelity

Toole:-
Quote:
Such Loudspeakers yield smooth room curves above the transition frequency, but they are not flat because Directivity Index rises gradually with frequency, meaning that Room Curves and Sound Power both fall gradually with frequency. Thus began the guessing game of which 'Target' room curve is ideal for which circumstances.


DD

Last edited by DanDan; 27th August 2018 at 12:15 AM..
Old 27th August 2018
  #66
Lives for gear
 
Jantex's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dinococcus View Post
IMHO,
the problem never resolved and which will not be, the method or methods of measurement related to the human interpretation of that is listened.

Surprise: what is this tools or knowledges they have progressed ?

Cook with a microscope (that the state of the acoustic technologies today) is not science and "the like all sciences" is out of context.

Acoustics could be a branch of physics but!, Can not be referred to theory, predicable hypothesis and experiments confirming theory and hypothesis

In science, there are not notion of esthetic. In acoustic how differents ways ? NE, Lede/rfz, ambechoic, CIB...

I m sorry but when i see the science used as a ketchup sauce, i can not let write what i read
Since the speakers are a sound source in a control room and the room itself is an envirnonment supporting end enabling "optimal" performance of loudspeaker, you can determine the goals and measurable parameters you are striving for in a CR design in advance. It is not like economics, where you include various thousands of variables into a model and you still omit indefinite which must get stohastically predicted. In case of acoustics there are much less of course, which are pretty well known.

With today's tools you can pretty accurately calculate and simulate high orders of sound reflections, accurately calculate the absorbtion, pressure, everything. Maybe I was wrong by mentioning science and would be more correct by simply saying engineering. But yes, engineering has majorly progressed with the use of modern tools and there is no more need for any trial and error. When you combine top notch engineering with a bit of psychoscoustic understanding, you are able to engineer a much more accurate control room that was simply not possible in the past. But you must have all this knowledge.

Yes, you had lots of acoustic designs, which were partial solutions to the problem constrained by the possibilities in the past. Some were better in some areas and worse in the others. But this field simply has progressed.
2
Share
Old 27th August 2018
  #67
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jantex View Post
Since the speakers are a sound source in a control room and the room itself is an envirnonment supporting end enabling "optimal" performance of loudspeaker, you can determine the goals and measurable parameters you are striving for in a CR design in advance. It is not like economics, where you include various thousands of variables into a model and you still omit indefinite which must get stohastically predicted. In case of acoustics there are much less of course, which are pretty well known.

With today's tools you can pretty accurately calculate and simulate high orders of sound reflections, accurately calculate the absorbtion, pressure, everything. Maybe I was wrong by mentioning science and would be more correct by simply saying engineering. But yes, engineering has majorly progressed with the use of modern tools and there is no more need for any trial and error. When you combine top notch engineering with a bit of psychoscoustic understanding, you are able to engineer a much more accurate control room that was simply not possible in the past. But you must have all this knowledge.

Yes, you had lots of acoustic designs, which were partial solutions to the problem constrained by the possibilities in the past. Some were better in some areas and worse in the others. But this field simply has progressed.
Hello,

I do not agree with all except the simulation tools who they could help.

First there are no rules of measurement shared by the profession.

Use of an omnidirectional source vs a mic, t20, t30 txx used by certains and rejected by others...


I read again people who make reference at fletcher and munson curve, this curve is obsolete.

And mostly, the number of different acoustic design are for me a problem.


Of course IMHO.
Old 27th August 2018
  #68
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dinococcus View Post
I read again people who make reference at fletcher and munson curve, this curve is obsolete.
As a non-expert reading this thread with interest,
please can you explain for me why this is the case - ie. FM curves are “obsolete”?
Old 27th August 2018
  #69
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinococcus View Post
Hello,

I do not agree with all except the simulation tools who they could help.

First there are no rules of measurement shared by the profession.

Use of an omnidirectional source vs a mic, t20, t30 txx used by certains and rejected by others...


I read again people who make reference at fletcher and munson curve, this curve is obsolete.

And mostly, the number of different acoustic design are for me a problem.


Of course IMHO.
There are dozens of international guidelines as to how specific measurements are done in acoustics. See this link:

Search

In the last 15 years you get a lot of assistance from computers in processing fairly heavy data. It makes a huge difference. The data gathered about speakers and materials behaviour, psychoacoustics is also much better, and hence we have a lot more visibility. A lot can be predicted accurately, especially if you have experience and know where the few deviations are usually found. Guaranteeing your work would be crazy if you didn't know exactly what you're doing.

See Dassault Systèmes CATIA softwares for amazing integrated, inter-disciplinary engineering modelling softwares, FEM based prediction models. These are a bit of a miracle really.

Architectural CAD softwares also help a lot in being able to detail structures and assemblies down to each single part... In full parametric 3D. No more guess work for the contractor.

The Fletcher-Munson curve is indeed not the only curve, there has been a lot of them proposed, even recently. It is just the "household" name for a particular phenomenon: equal-loudness-level contours of pure tones wrt human hearing.

If you mention F&M, most everybody in audio knows what you're talking about.

If you mention Robinson–Dadson or Lydolf–Møller no one knows what you're talking about. At general listening levels in studios, curves are still sufficiently alike to describe this particular phenomenon. See attached table for a history of the different curves.

And then there are the much less known and discussed loudness models for time-varying sounds, "DLM" dynamic loudness model and "TVL" time varying loudness. That I've never seen discussed anywhere online.

Attached a couple of PDF about the state of both.
Attached Thumbnails
The Titanic, room curves and other GS style OT wanderings-elc-table.jpg  
Attached Files
2
Share
Old 27th August 2018
  #70
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
Thomas please try reading that sentence again now that two words are bolded. Do you understand now? I was obviously estimating the 'Hype' and adding it to your 'exaggerated' + Subs provision. Overall that section of my post is concurring with your suggesting that the spectrum of music has shifted downwards.
Dan,

Your posts are confusing, winding and hard to read on top of your constant demeaning comments. I'm often having a hard time understanding what information you're actually trying to convey.

The fact that the rooms are pushing the deep LF and hence making them more audible at lower working levels avoids the mixes being too LF heavy while keeping your ears fresh longer. That's one of the main reasons engineers like that LF curve.
4
Share
Old 27th August 2018
  #71
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northward View Post
There are dozens of international guidelines as to how specific measurements are done in acoustics. See this link:

Search

In the last 15 years you get a lot of assistance from computers in processing fairly heavy data. It makes a huge difference. The data gathered about speakers and materials behaviour, psychoacoustics is also much better, and hence we have a lot more visibility. A lot can be predicted accurately, especially if you have experience and know where the few deviations are usually found. Guaranteeing your work would be crazy if you didn't know exactly what you're doing.

See Dassault Systèmes CATIA softwares for amazing integrated, inter-disciplinary engineering modelling softwares, FEM based prediction models. These are a bit of a miracle really.

Architectural CAD softwares also help a lot in being able to detail structures and assemblies down to each single part... In full parametric 3D. No more guess work for the contractor.

The Fletcher-Munson curve is indeed not the only curve, there has been a lot of them proposed, even recently. It is just the "household" name for a particular phenomenon: equal-loudness-level contours of pure tones wrt human hearing.

If you mention F&M, most everybody in audio knows what you're talking about.

If you mention Robinson–Dadson or Lydolf–Møller no one knows what you're talking about. At general listening levels in studios, curves are still sufficiently alike to describe this particular phenomenon. See attached table for a history of the different curves.

And then there are the much less known and discussed loudness models for time-varying sounds, "DLM" dynamic loudness model and "TVL" time varying loudness. That I've never seen discussed anywhere online.

Attached a couple of PDF about the state of both.
I was it project manager in the industry. Thank you for the response and the pdf.
1
Share
Old 27th August 2018
  #72
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skol303 View Post
As a non-expert reading this thread with interest,
please can you explain for me why this is the case - ie. FM curves are “obsolete”?
You can find the iso 226:2003 revised in 2014.
Old 27th August 2018
  #73
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northward View Post
Attached a couple of PDF about the state of both.
Thank you Thomas. The Takeshima paper is great!

Andre
1
Share
Old 27th August 2018
  #74
Lives for gear
 

i have to admit that as a non-native english speaking person, i'm having some troubles following dan's latest comments too (which i enjoy reading nevertheless).

(i'm with dan in that?) i personally prefer not to work with flat response most of the time: due to habits! after 35 years of mixing under various conditions, i'm probably not gonna change my habits anytime soon, but in order to keep up with/fight current trends (and survive in a sometimes hostile environment), i have been carrying external dsp (for around 15 years now) to use/achieve my own preferred curves, regardless where i work and no matter how elaborate the design of the cr may be.

i think it's wrong to assume that only flat response translates well; at the very least, they don't serve me well and most likely a few others too. - in fact, the vast majority of rooms/systems are far from beeing flat! it is a privilege to work in well planned/built/measured/corrected rooms with terrific response (down to the edge of our hearing capability), but only few gz members enjoy this on a regular basis. so i think a discussion, even amongst pros designing or working in these facilities, should always aim at including those with a different background. saying that one needs flat response doesn't do this enough...

also, there are some individuals who put out amazingly well balanced mixes continuously with rather poor equipment, out of diy rooms! sure some wish they could afford to improve their room/gear and not fight a constant battle, but others are perfectly happy with what they have, don't seem to suffer and rather spend their money going on holidays than on any additional piece of gear.

i prefer listening and switching between two systems (three when including headphones) with entirely different characteristics, behaviour and response, one beeing 'softer' and its response resembling the famous b&k curve (and without much bass), the other closer to what thomas outlined in one of his previous posts with lots of bass but then pretty much flat (gentle hf roll off in my case): i'm using a horn loaded system that imo translates much better when mixes are getting played on large pa systems (something rather important for my work). for this, the speaker design (horns, ported) and it's behaviour to me seem to be much more important than the curve i'm using - anyway, one can never have enough bass!



p.s. i never align pa's flat either, especially in the days of line arrays (unless i have to on someone's request or for max. hf capacity) - sorry, the 'different animal' has been lurking around so i couldn't ignore it entirely...



[related to bass, but off topic: i planned and installed a sound/announcement system for an airshow last weekend - it's somewhat hard to compete with a FA-18, especially when not having many subs in use... - heavily distorted output throughout the entire frequency spectrum, but thunderous bass and insane spl capability!]

Last edited by deedeeyeah; 27th August 2018 at 05:00 PM.. Reason: slightly edited and p.s. added
1
Share
Old 27th August 2018
  #75
Gear Guru
English

Thomas it is interesting and informative to see your case for Flat Response. I believe it is pretty much the same thinking which has voiced many many other CRs over the decades. It seems obvious that one would use a flat clear device to 'hear what is on the recording'. But in this case such intuitive simplicity doesn't work for many of us.
There is a widespread, well researched, proven in practice, diametrically opposed view, which I have presented evidence of.
My ambition here is to shine a light on the strong dichotomy and to offer it as a pretty credible reason for CR performance failure. Both views have been stated which is good.

There is a poor S/N ratio here though.

e.g. 'Judgements' of posting quality or style. Is this a Literary Forum?
Criticism of Post Lengths........ Is this Twitter? Anyone is equally welcome to read or not read.
But LOL, yours look about the same length as mine....;-)

This is my native (colonised) language and I touch type.
deedee, has not misinterpreted an iota of what I write.
Twice now we see absolutely absurd misinterpretations.
Clue:- If it doesn't make sense to the point of absurd, you have misread it.

Others have stated much more serious difficulties with posting style and content from another.

Jason Foi:-
Quote:
But one thing is certain, these silly debates and blantant attacks on other members over semantics or the intentional twisting of their words to make them seem ignorant is unproductive and unhelpful to all. And in my opinion, unprofessional.
deedeeyeah:-
Quote:
you seem to assume that everybody not following your agumentation isn't a pro in his field and you are using a language that imo is insulting..
thomlin:-
Quote:
It might be "bad luck" for me to be caught in what more seem like a "fight" between different mix concepts than my contribution to this thread, but either way, dismissive and insulting comments like "parrot noise", "laugh til no end" and hints that I and other users of SMT products are gullible, should have no place here.
Hilary Clinton:-
Quote:
People in covfefe houses should not throw covfefe.
DD

Last edited by DanDan; 27th August 2018 at 04:14 PM..
1
Share
Old 27th August 2018
  #76
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dinococcus View Post
You can find the iso 226:2003 revised in 2014.
Thanks for the reference

----------

Sparring aside, I’m finding this discussion very interesting.

I’m not a professional acoustician, so I have very little to add. But here’s a shot of the frequency response in my small DIY ‘control room’ (+/-5 dB at 1/48 smoothing). The response is adjusted using Dirac Live, loosely based on the B&K curve.

I find that without the slight HF roll off, my reference material sounds too bright. When I apply the HF attenuation, everything sounds ‘balanced’… at least to my ears.

That is my own, very un-scientific experience of the subject. But then my context is a small, crappy home studio and not a professional, purpose-built environment.

The Titanic, room curves and other GS style OT wanderings-freq-response.jpg
Attached Thumbnails
The Titanic, room curves and other GS style OT wanderings-freq-response.jpg  
2
Share
Old 27th August 2018
  #77
Gear Guru
Interesting

Thank you Skol and deedee for sharing your translation experiences. I believe anybody attempting to Mix or Master will experience the same Game of Inverses and seeming contradictions. Theses experiences amongst practitioners suggests it is a lot more than some individual subjective taste issue.
In order for our work to sound 'right' in the real world, we need hear the recordings AS the real world will.
My Listening Room
i.e. Tilted, which is "actually good".
YouTube

DD

Last edited by DanDan; 27th August 2018 at 06:14 PM..
Old 27th August 2018
  #78
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skol303 View Post
Thanks for the reference

----------

Sparring aside, I’m finding this discussion very interesting.

I’m not a professional acoustician, so I have very little to add. But here’s a shot of the frequency response in my small DIY ‘control room’ (+/-5 dB at 1/48 smoothing). The response is adjusted using Dirac Live, loosely based on the B&K curve.

I find that without the slight HF roll off, my reference material sounds too bright. When I apply the HF attenuation, everything sounds ‘balanced’… at least to my ears.

That is my own, very un-scientific experience of the subject. But then my context is a small, crappy home studio and not a professional, purpose-built environment.

A curve in one position except for the bass is not representative of what is heard.

Imho
Old 27th August 2018
  #79
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dinococcus View Post
A curve in one position except for the bass is not representative of what is heard.

Imho
true - but it's still one of the better things we can base our discussion onto...

...and mind you: when using separate subs in very large rooms, bass can only be aligned to a specific frequency and to a specific distance!
1
Share
Old 27th August 2018
  #80
Gear Guru
Nelly

deedee, I used to work extensively in Live Sound. These days I tend not to be involved in the Equipment, Set up, Tuning etc.
The old approach was Pink Flat on RTA.
Smaart etc. these days but same thing, especially with Line Arrays. Problematically bright.
Seems like Nelly again eh?

DD
Old 27th August 2018
  #81
Lives for gear
 

hi dan

as you mentioned, the gear to measure changed somewhat in live sound (smaart rules): more detailed data can be gathered, yet interpretation of data remains difficult (or became even more difficult), especially in the lf area.

another problematic issue is that many system engineers seem to be mostly ignorant regarding rt60, leading sometimes to systems which measure pretty flat but are far from useable or even enjoyable without further adjustments.

(which we then somehow have to do a minute before doors 'cause we got stuck in traffic jam, were trying to spot our lost baggage and hence did not make it to the venue on time or even more frustrating: the time is available and the gear is all there, but we are not getting access to the system controller or are not even allowed to use anything sensible in front of it 'cause we are not mixing the headliner).

with the rise of neodym magnets, digital desks, digital crossovers, switching amps and line arrays, i think it's fair to say that...

(truck space for the audio rig could get halfed withing the last 20 years, power consumation roughly stayed the same but)

...general spl capacity and especially lf and hf output of modern pa systems are far bigger than of any system some 20 years ago... - go figure to what 'curves' this has led!

---

i'm having fun using extended lf range and power handling capacity (in the studio and) on some of the shows i get to mix, yet it's hardly ever really needed, conflicts with spl restrictions and sometimes forces promoters into installing lf cancellation systems, driving costs further up for everybody involved...

...while i'm getting mad (and sometimes really angry) from being attacked by the sheer amount of hf energy coming from modern systems, especially if they get aligned (lake rules) to measure flat at foh, dozen of meters away from the rig!!

so: use dsp! but not much love for flat reponse, certainly not (at foh) live, mostly not (in the sweet spot) in the studio - hope i could get my message accross, don't wanna derail this thread any further, promised!

cheers,

didier




p.s. to those being sceptical about the use of dsp to control speakers: rent a lake controller for a month. and if you ever get a chance, check out eaw's anya, anna and otto speakers: ganz grosses kino! (although being a large scale line array...) i wish some of the options which this system offers would become standard in the studio world; so far, even those studio speaker manufacturers offering some dsp are lagging far behind, even on simple things such as multiple inputs in several formats as standard (dante, aes and analog in this case) - same goes for immersive sound: manufacturers of live sound gear such as l'acoustics, d&b and meyersound reach new levels in immersive sound - we should try to keep up with current technology and applications by (at least) checking into some other fields, even if they are outside of our comfort zone!

Last edited by deedeeyeah; 27th August 2018 at 08:18 PM.. Reason: p.s. added
Old 27th August 2018
  #82
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
I believe anybody attempting to Mix or Master will experience the same Game of Inverses and seeming contradictions. Theses experiences amongst practitioners suggests it is a lot more than some individual subjective taste issue.
In order for our work to sound 'right' in the real world, we need hear the recordings AS the real world will. DD
One last attempt:

From the project files I currently have on my laptop HDD / not archived yet:

- Out of 29 mastering suites designed and built, 0 are using/requested such a curve.
- Out of 43 control rooms designed and built, 0 are using/requested such a curve.
- Out of 10 post-prod facilites, 0 are using/requested such a curve.
- Out of 6 large research labs and/or speaker manufacturer test facilities with critical product listening room, 0 are using/requested such a curve.
- Out of the 30-odd non-Northward designed rooms I have measured in the last few years, 0 are using such a curve.

This includes a large amount of A-list mix and mastering engineers and world renowned test labs and manufacturers.

That's 118 professional grade rooms in the USA and Europe. That is a statistically very significant sample.

So I'm assuming it is an extremely rare occurrence in 2018 that such a curve is used in studios - if it ever was used substantially at any point in time. Maybe in live settings, but it's not my field whatsoever, so I have no idea.

Please, read Jen's linked Toole document which is from 2015. It explains why clearly.
6
Share
Old 27th August 2018
  #83
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan, post #38
Has anybody here made a Record?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan, post #62
Ultimately I hope fact is not obscured by tire kicking hypothesists here. The only one with actual experience of making records seems to be danthony. Subscribers to SuperCar Monthly, who have yet to pass a Driving Test.
Dan, you're barking up the wrong tree here. I'd prefer not to say this directly but since you're the one who keeps bringing it up, you do realize that Jens and Thomas have large numbers of clients with much more credibility than you as a mixing/mastering engineer, right? When they say that their clients do not request your preferred house curve, then that itself is worth paying attention to, given the clients we're talking about here.

This is in addition to the actual acoustic/psychoacoustic facts that have been repeatedly brought up in this thread. I get the feeling that your advocacy of the B&K curve is not due an impartial analysis of the topic, but rather a means justify the fact that your rooms only use thin broadband absorption, unable to do anything significant in the deep bass region. Thomas and Jens use more advanced techniques and consequently don't have this problem.

If their clients wanted it, they could easily add the B&K curve in with some other minimum phase method I mentioned before (flush-mounting, speaker calibration, EQ), rather than using thin porous absorbers that don't actually kill room resonances.
6
Share
Old 27th August 2018
  #84
Gear Guru
Posse

OK, I didn't want to say this here either but invisible factors need to be made known to establish some perspective and honesty here.
Thank you for messages of support sent privately. It seems many find this interesting, good.
Indeed the very existence of this thread reflects the interest in exploring this phenomenon.
i.e. Mechanics at odds with Drivers.

Mike and Thomas could you tell our readers what is/has been your business/working relationship?
Ditto Jens? Would you consider yourselves friends?
If I were to Report Abhorrent Posts by any or all of you, who would Moderate?

e.g. This is a blatant lie by Mike, slander.
Quote:
your rooms only use thin broadband absorption
My treatments always include the deepest Cloud possible, the larger SSC's, Back and Front Walls as deep as possible etc.

The Titanic, room curves and other GS style OT wanderings-05-back-wall-2.jpg
The Titanic, room curves and other GS style OT wanderings-img_20171020_141005718.jpg

There are three here who don't make records, but work together afaik.
Three of us here who do make records, and are entirely independent of each other.
We three use HF Roll Off. You three believe we shouldn't.

There is certainly a credibility issue here.

Fact, every time I have encountered a problem with a commercial CR, it was always excessive brightness.
This has been well known for a long time. It presents a problem in translation. I didn't make up 'The New York Curve', nor Olive's research into the preferred listening curve. EBU, boggy, Hodas, etc. etc.

There is no methodology by which modern NE CRs could do anything tonally different now as opposed to when Hidley, Newell, came up with Non Environment.
So nothing has changed, apart from perhaps the Spectrum being listened to, particularly in certain types of Music.

It remains a fact that something that sounds tonally balanced in a Flat Response environment simply cannot maintain that tonal balance in a listening scenario 6-10dB duller.

DD
Attached Thumbnails
The Titanic, room curves and other GS style OT wanderings-05-back-wall-2.jpg   The Titanic, room curves and other GS style OT wanderings-img_20171020_141005718.jpg  

Last edited by DanDan; 28th August 2018 at 12:08 AM..
2
Share
Old 28th August 2018
  #85
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpos View Post
Dan, you're barking up the wrong tree here. I'd prefer not to say this directly but since you're the one who keeps bringing it up, you do realize that Jens and Thomas have large numbers of clients with much more credibility than you as a mixing/mastering engineer, right? When they say that their clients do not request your preferred house curve, then that itself is worth paying attention to, given the clients we're talking about here.

This is in addition to the actual acoustic/psychoacoustic facts that have been repeatedly brought up in this thread. I get the feeling that your advocacy of the B&K curve is not due an impartial analysis of the topic, but rather a means justify the fact that your rooms only use thin broadband absorption, unable to do anything significant in the deep bass region. Thomas and Jens use more advanced techniques and consequently don't have this problem.

If their clients wanted it, they could easily add the B&K curve in with some other minimum phase method I mentioned before (flush-mounting, speaker calibration, EQ), rather than using thin porous absorbers that don't actually kill room resonances.
wtf...!

did you get to see, hear and measure a significant amount of dan's work? how can you prove he's using nothing but broadband absorbers?

dan has given much good advice to countless posters here worth millions of bucks, 'for the many, not the few'! - and when it comes to credibility, we (allow for some solidarność here) can throw in hundrets of big names too (the minority with studio work, the vast majority in live work and broadcast in my case), possibly reaching many more thousand listeners than you/r clients!

[35 years of professional work, international touring with a-list musicians, close to 5000 live shows so far, mixed around 400 albums so far, very few films but music with a significant amount of surround work, touring/mixing/recording for bands, ensembles, orchestras, composers, ballets etc., measuring of countless installations, designing a few hundret temporary, dozens of permanent installations and even three studios, owning and running studios, working in a couple of hundret other studios on all continents (except latin america)... - i could go on!]

i'm asking you to edit your previous post - or the moderator to delete it including my answer!
1
Share
Old 28th August 2018
  #86
Gear Guru
Credibility

Indeed deedee, disgraceful posting, Immunity causes Impunity.
Sounds like you are a Legend too, HaFrokska Bro. And all that from a time when Records were sold in the Millions.
And people could sing and play instruments. YouTube
Perhaps Tom Waits or Emmylou Harris might garner some puppy respect. Or The Roots for you bottom end feeders.
Perhaps that's a bit old for some here.
This is too, but you will hear it at Pharrell's Soundchecks currently.
Vanities

Aaah, the name game, willy waving of the insecure.

David Bowie was waiting for an interviewer........ In came the guy, David stands up, outstretched hand, 'Hi I'm David Bowie.... and you're not'

DD

Last edited by DanDan; 28th August 2018 at 12:49 AM..
1
Share
Old 28th August 2018
  #87
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan
e.g. This is a blatant lie by Mike, slander.
My treatments always include the deepest Cloud possible, the larger SSC's, Back and Front Walls as deep as possible etc.
"Deepest possible" does not necessarily mean "deep."

The hint you are using thin porous absorption is that your rooms are accentuated (or tilted) in the bass region. If you were absorbing the bass this wouldn't happen, by definition.

If you are using absorbers deep enough to absorb flat down to 30 Hz or so, then your rooms do not have this bass accentuation and I'm not sure what you've been arguing about.

Depth is difficult to judge by pictures, but what you've posted seems to illustrate my point -- anything thinner than about 2 ft will be too thin to absorb very much below 100 Hz. This would explain the tilt toward the bass region that you've been describing.

The pictures on your website show even thinner absorbers than what you've posted here.


...


As for the other stuff, it's not exactly a secret -- if it was, Thomas wouldn't have told you. I consider both of them friends and I've learned a lot from them.

I'm not sure why you bring this up as an argument against me. If anything, I assume it would increase my credibility on here given that they are the two most knowledgeable designers regularly posting on this board, but I've never brought it up since my arguments stand or fall on their own.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan
Aaah, the name game, willy waving of the insecure.
I'm not playing any name games. If I was, I would've name-dropped Thomas and Jens long ago. I actually think arguing about credentials is silly, which is why I don't bring the issue up. But I couldn't let you flash your credentials at two people who are frankly far more qualified than you in this field. It's a losing argument for you to make, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up.

Last edited by mpos; 28th August 2018 at 01:07 AM..
2
Share
Old 28th August 2018
  #88
Lives for gear
 
Jason Foi's Avatar
 

Ermagherd, silly, silly, silly. Let us not forget the reason these studios exist. To make music. Who gives a flip how the end result is made as long as it sounds good. Boost the low end/leave the high end alone, leave the low end alone/cut the high end. Either way its NOT flat and the low end is emphasized over the high end. It seems to me that the reason there are so many different curves is because some curves work for some people and not for others, and thats ok.
4
Share
Old 28th August 2018
  #89
Lives for gear
 
Jason Foi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpos View Post
The hint you are using thin porous absorption is that your rooms are accentuated (or tilted) in the bass region. If you were absorbing the bass this wouldn't happen, by definition.

If you are using absorbers deep enough to absorb flat down to 30 Hz or so, then your rooms do not have this bass accentuation and I'm not sure what you've been arguing about.

Depth is difficult to judge by pictures, but what you've posted seems to illustrate my point -- anything thinner than about 2 ft will be too thin to absorb very much below 100 Hz. This would explain the tilt toward the bass region that you've been describing.

The pictures on your website show even thinner absorbers than what you've posted here.



...



As for the other stuff, it's not exactly some secret -- if it was, Thomas wouldn't have told you. I consider both of them friends and I've learned a lot from them.

I'm not sure why you bring this up as an argument against me. If anything, I'd assume it would increase my credibility on here, but I've never brought it up as I think my arguments stand or fall on their own right.

Ummmm.... you know he applies the B&K curve by the use of DSP right? Its not an accident that he chooses to use that curve.
1
Share
Old 28th August 2018
  #90
Gear Guru
Comparisons

Partial disclosure is really another lie poorly disguised. Mike, do you currently or have you worked for/with Thomas?
This goes to commercial and confirmation bias.

Like any Acoustician doing their best in the majority of acoustic situations, I use as deep as possible in the space and budget available.
Deep in absorption. Modex/PSI when there is money available but no space.
It might surprise you the population of my country is smaller than Manchester and has been asset stripped by the EU.
I am very content with my levels or relative success. I spend my time helping people and making their situation better.
Here and on GS. What do you do?

I see signs of deep bitter unhappiness in imagining and reading about perfection. Worship of False Gods.

I make no comparisons with Thomas success at PR and his amazing mechanical engineering skills. But the Acoustics are Newell. The only innovator in terms of actually heard sound is obviously, boggy.

You display a fundamental ignorance of practical acoustics here. You should sue your school. Lack of sufficient LF absorption does not make a room sound boomy or even warm. It is the opposite, the Inverse, in fact.
Small domestic inadequately treated rooms suffer from destructive Modal and non Resonant BIR. This makes them Bass Light. To compound this, the same inadequate treatment does a good job at removing early reflections. The lack of such reflections creates an unhindered path from tweeter to ear. No combing, great clarity. To finish the job, the same thin panel treatments removes decay in the warmth region. So, we are left with response which has LF full of holes, no honky warmth, and laser sharp treble. Acousticians or anybody with ears knows this. You won't find it in your textbooks though. Academia misses quite a lot. Ships sink. Zeppelins explode. Sorry did I 'wind'..... So we adjust the summed response of speaker and room, by using the time honoured same old 1dB per octave filter on the loudspeakers. Or other curves to taste or purpose.
I don't think you get the Game of Inverses.

DD

Last edited by DanDan; 28th August 2018 at 01:34 AM..
2
Share
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump