The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
The Titanic, room curves and other GS style OT wanderings
Old 28th August 2018
  #91
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
I once travelled in Asia for 3 months in my youth. I brought with me a pair of less expensive headphones although I found them slightly bass heavy and a tad “less accurate” in the higher range, I didn’t want to bring my large and more expensive cans.

Once back at home; I was looking forward to listening to music though my beloved proper headphones again … but I was in for a chock; It sounded awful! Way to bright and no bass. It took me almost a month before I could start to enjoy music in my K601 again!

What did I learn? We can get used to almost anything when it comes to our senses. If you drink your coffee with sugar, it´ll take you perhaps 2-4 weeks and you’ll learn to enjoy it without. And once you have; you´ll probably think that it tastes bad with sugar. Walk around a day with shades that turns everything a tad yellow, and you’ll think everything looks blue when you take them off and normal if on. Listen to a tilted HF response for more that a few days and you’ll suddenly think that a correct (flat direct sound above the modal range, below is a different situation since all normal rooms add in this range so even if speaker is flat; the room contribution causes a rise in the modal range) response sounds wrong.

None of my clients has ever requested a tilted (again; direct, not steady state ungated) FR above 1 kHz. The lows can differ quite a lot, but most tend to prefer between a +3 to a +7 dB boost (@ 30 Hz compared to above 1 kHz)

When I calibrate PA systems on the other hand … wow that curve can tilt like crazy, even in the highs!
5
Share
Old 28th August 2018
  #92
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Foi View Post
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.
Dan himself has been explicitly referring to room acoustic response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan post#8
So to clarify further, again, it is the Acoustic Response I am referring to, or to distill it again, Frequency Response. In this case a DIY effort may well achieve better translation to home listening. Because it is closer to it. Back in the day, we took our Mixes home. Listened in the car, various rooms/systems at home, friends or neighbours spaces. We kept the mix up on the board until it stopped sounding different.
So in essence we mixed, or did the QC, IN an average of actual spaces. Ahem, B&K the long way round but for real.

I don't know what he does with EQ and it isn't relevant to the discussion.
Old 28th August 2018
  #93
Gear Guru
DOH

Quote:
Dan himself has been explicitly referring to room acoustic response.
Are you in fact incapable of desisting from lies and utterly lacking in understanding of acoustics Mike?

You are adding words in a futile attempt to disguise your absurd fallacies.

Quote:
it is the Acoustic Response I am referring to, or to distill it again, Frequency Response
There is no 'room' in that sentence.

Obvioulsy my 'acoustic response' is a reference to the summed contributions of of everything at play, furniture, treatments, speakers being kinda key.....

Psst, could you let your pal know he is pissing in the wind, using an automated function, I don't see a word of his posts.

DD

Last edited by DanDan; 28th August 2018 at 01:58 AM..
Old 28th August 2018
  #94
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
Are you in fact capable of desisting from lies Mike?

My 'acoustic response' is a reference to the summed contributions of room, furniture, treatment, and...... speakers.
It´s hard to get a response without sound source … and furniture and treatment is part of the room.

DD: if you go on like this, you´ll only get yourself banned again.

Last edited by Jens Eklund; 28th August 2018 at 01:57 AM..
2
Share
Old 28th August 2018
  #95
Lives for gear
 

Dan, I assumed you were referring to the response of the room itself since the topic is room modes.

To clarify, are you saying that you treat the rooms to be flat and then add in a B&K house curve via DSP? So you actually agree that a room should be treated to be completely flat?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan
Psst, could you let your pal know he is pissing in the wind, using an automated function, I don't see a word of his posts.
You're asking me to send a message to Jens to tell him that you can't hear him.

Is this high school?
Old 28th August 2018
  #96
Gear Guru
Yes

The Topic is not room modes. I have suggested retitling to reflect the content. CR Responses, or perhaps as many are saying, Interesting.
Quote:
To clarify, are you saying that you treat the rooms to be flat and then add in a B&K house curve via DSP? So you actually agree that a room should be treated to be completely flat?
Yes that could be a great starting point, a blank canvas. Extremely rarely affordable in terms of space and money though.
Thomas fantastic statistic is echoed by a well known Genelec survey in terms of static response. Very different Room Tone figures though. There is also a reaction to the 'overly dead' though, we see a whole lot of slats in other peoples' work. Lots. Enough IMO to be definitely contributing to the heard sound. Then there is boggy's work and CID. Who knows what the very popular SMT are up to? So perhaps there are even better starting points.
Neutral direct field during the time frame when it matters most but some 'humanity' added. Now where did we see that before.....

The Goal is not just amazing performance figures in isolated aspects. It is Translation.

What is missing from the stats as to actual CR performances in terms of FR, and which changes everything, is that practitioners very often use Target Curves to address the target audience response. Heard responses, mostly indicated by summed FR. In Cinema it is the X, in the home the B&K or Sonarworks family of researched ones. Boggy obviously uses the EBU. There are 'TV' ones and personal ones. For the EDM etc. subs are sometimes added to both simulate the actually heard spectrum and to prevent excess. Craft and Creative folk use 'Tooles' both software and hardware to achieve beauty in the ears of the beholder. Furthermore, there are time tools. Scientifically 'perfect' concert halls have added variable acoustics including electroacoustic, because just like anechoic, 'perfect' is neither musical nor normal. These techniques, electronic, have been appearing in the home, particularly HT receivers. As has DSP assisted frequency response.
That is the way it is.
Jim 1961 has a brilliant thread, a journey, to achieve his ultimate Listening Room.
I think it would make a great place to Mix or Master.

DD

Last edited by DanDan; 28th August 2018 at 03:36 AM..
3
Share
Old 28th August 2018
  #97
Lives for gear
 
Jantex's Avatar
 

My four points in this discussion:

1. There is no widely accepted listening curve, no matter what some old studies did. Because it depends on conditions, like the size of the room and how anechoic it is.

2. I wouldn't ever wanted to work with tilted HF or MF for professional work. Never. It wouldn't translate in my case. So I would opt for the curves Thomas mentioned, slight bass boost, but HF and MF flat as pancake.

3. When looking at your webpage, DanDan, for your projects and also looking at the picture you posted in this thread, I mostly see domestic rooms with some basic acoustic treatment, according to the pictures also all these rooms have questinable dimensions, use domestic tables and cheap small nearfield monitors. Nothing wrong with it, but it is lightyears from conceptually designed pro room built from the ground up, it is a totally different playing field. And a universe apart from the room I visited that was designed by Thomas.

4. And for obesrvation. Someone hitting 16,4k posts in 15 years, makes it more than 1000 posts per year. It makes me realize someone wasn't too busy mixing or being heavily involved with studio construction. I consider being quite a frequent poster and hit 2000 posts in 11 years, which makes it less than 200 per year. And yes, it does take its time. Having 5 times the ratio I would have barely any time to work.
4
Share
Old 28th August 2018
  #98
Lives for gear
 

wow, so many lemmings, but hitting out hard... - hasta luego!

at least it became clear who not to listen to: some designers (who might measure a room a month)

i much rather 'align' with an experienced designer/engineer (who does countless eq choices on a daily basis)

Last edited by deedeeyeah; 28th August 2018 at 01:53 PM.. Reason: conclusion
2
Share
Old 28th August 2018
  #99
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jantex View Post
My four points in this discussion:

1. There is no widely accepted listening curve, no matter what some old studies did. Because it depends on conditions, like the size of the room and how anechoic it is.

2. I wouldn't ever wanted to work with tilted HF or MF for professional work. Never. It wouldn't translate in my case. So I would opt for the curves Thomas mentioned, slight bass boost, but HF and MF flat as pancake.

3. When looking at your webpage, DanDan, for your projects and also looking at the picture you posted in this thread, I mostly see domestic rooms with some basic acoustic treatment, according to the pictures also all these rooms have questinable dimensions, use domestic tables and cheap small nearfield monitors. Nothing wrong with it, but it is lightyears from conceptually designed pro room built from the ground up, it is a totally different playing field. And a universe apart from the room I visited that was designed by Thomas.

4. And for obesrvation. Someone hitting 16,4k posts in 15 years, makes it more than 1000 posts per year. It makes me realize someone wasn't too busy mixing or being heavily involved with studio construction. I consider being quite a frequent poster and hit 2000 posts in 11 years, which makes it less than 200 per year. And yes, it does take its time. Having 5 times the ratio I would have barely any time to work.
Yes, and that’s why It´s important to understand the difference between steady state (un-gated) response and the direct (gated) response.

The industry is currently slowly waking up and more people are starting to become aware of this. To try and match a target curve in steady state is hopefully becoming obsolete and a flat neutral direct sound is the “new” goal for mid to high frequencies. The auditory system is not very different from software when analysing the impulse:

Acoustics Issue

This also helps explain why a rise at low frequencies can be considered “correct” scientifically since the time-bandwidth requirement for low frequencies becomes to large, so the brain cannot distinguish between direct sound and the total of direct plus room contribution at low frequencies. Since most speakers are made as flat as possible to an as low frequency as practically possible, the end result, if taking an average of many speaker + room situations, is a rise at low frequencies (in the modal range) so this is what most people are used to. But at higher frequencies, unless sitting off axis from the speakers; the direct sound from a majority of speakers is still more or less flat (depending naturally on the quality of the speaker).
4
Share
Old 28th August 2018
  #100
Gear Guru
Odd

Quote:
1. There is no widely accepted listening curve, no matter what some old studies did. Because it depends on conditions, like the size of the room and how anechoic it is.
Can you define 'widely' and supply evidence? The X Curve seems pretty popular. EBU, B&K, New York, etc. etc. I didn't invent them and there has been no change. I see essentially differences between the various implementations of NE since Newell advanced it to the current state of the art.


Quote:
2. I wouldn't ever wanted to work with tilted HF or MF for professional work. Never. It wouldn't translate in my case. So I would opt for the curves Thomas mentioned, slight bass boost, but HF and MF flat as pancake.
Fine, but again the facts, have you measured the actual heard response where you work? Indeed, do you work in Audio or Acoustics? It would be good to evaluate your opinions without the anonymity.

Quote:
3. When looking at your webpage, DanDan, for your projects and also looking at the picture you posted in this thread, I mostly see domestic rooms with some basic Acoustic Treatment, according to the pictures also all these rooms have questinable dimensions, use domestic tables and cheap small nearfield monitors. Nothing wrong with it, but it is lightyears from conceptually designed pro room built from the ground up, it is a totally different playing field. And a universe apart from the room I visited that was designed by Thomas.
I work at the lowest end of the Acoustic Market, Thomas at the highest. All of my work is Retro Treatment. Making things better for little money. I would not attempt a 'Build' I would call boggy, Newell, Jeff Hedback, John Sayers, John Brandt, to either take the job or collaborate, with them doing the Architecture and Mechanical Engineering, me doing the Sonic side. It would be absurd to suggest that his PR and Mechanical Engineering skills somehow 'Trump' my Sonic skills. We won't see a Billboard Chart number 4 from the any of the three musketeers anytime soon.

My assertions as to Translation are observable fact. Anyone with a UMIK, CR, Domestic Room, and a Computer can both hear and see the phenomena described by me, or Dr. Olive if you want Posh.

Quote:
4. And for obesrvation. Someone hitting 16,4k posts in 15 years, makes it more than 1000 posts per year. It makes me realize someone wasn't too busy mixing or being heavily involved with studio construction. I consider being quite a frequent poster and hit 2000 posts in 11 years, which makes it less than 200 per year. And yes, it does take its time. Having 5 times the ratio I would have barely any time to work.
I touch type. My office is above my studio. I have made many friends here and learned a lot. I give back.

I think any reader can see where you are coming from.

Quote:
Both Dr. Olive's initial speaker measurements, the JBL Synthesis measurements, and the B&K curve agree that high-quality speakers measuring flat in an anechoic chamber tend to have a ~1dB/octave "room gain" curve when placed in a good-sounding room with no equalization.
All I am saying is that given almost universally inadequately treated rooms, or over treated, (who listens in Anechoic Chambers?) it is useful to persuade the Speaker/Room summed response to get close to these preferred and pretty universal domestic responses.
I point out that Dirac Live for instance, does very little in my CR. The Speakers with a touch of onboard Eq are very close to the ubiquitous 1dB/Oct slope. In a badly skewed room or a commercial 'Anechoic Chamber' CR, it is a godsend to impose the 'Home' response.

I will ask again. Can anyone here propose a theory how audio tonally balanced in an Anechoic transfer function, would not sound radically different in one with HF slope reduced by 6-9dB?



DD

Last edited by DanDan; 28th August 2018 at 06:54 PM..
1
Share
Old 28th August 2018
  #101
Deleted 4adc64a
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
All I am saying is that given almost universally inadequately treated rooms, or over treated, (who listens in Anechoic Chambers?) it is useful to persuade the Speaker/Room summed response to get close to these preferred and pretty universal domestic responses.
And all most of us are saying is that we don't find this useful or preferred.

Quote:
I will ask again. Can anyone here propose a theory how audio tonally balanced in an Anechoic transfer function, would not sound radically different in one with HF slope reduced by 6-9dB?
Mixing/monitoring for a theoretical end user listening with a 6-9db HF slope is a choice anyone can make. What you're hopefully getting from this thread is that the vast majority of professionals working with recorded music/audio do not make this choice.

Given the hypercompetitive nature of the industry I think it's safe to assume that a practice that is so obvious, easily implemented, and lower in cost would have been more widely adopted by now if it were truly useful or preferred. Yet the push has been almost entirely in the opposite direction, strongly suggesting otherwise.
4
Share
Old 28th August 2018
  #102
Gear Guru
Fair

A civil post, thanks.
I think it fair to say that you do not find it useful or preferred. In conjunction with perhaps a little info, e.g. Discography or such. Your call, although it would add value to know where you are coming from.....

However to claim that 'most of us' or 'a majority'. Not even here in this thread is that numerically correct. Not that such populism would have any influence on an easily observed fact.
Populism is not Acoustic.
I mean everybody may Master at over -14dB LUFS, but is that a good thing? Kanye West may sell a lot of whatever, and Trump may actually have won an election, but those are actually sad reflections on people's choices. Something the music business is full of.


I would welcome your view on the question asked.
How can something in a flat space translate to a 6-10dB dulled?

DD
Old 28th August 2018
  #103
Deleted 4adc64a
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
A civil post, thanks.
I think it fair to say that you do not find it useful or preferred. In conjunction with perhaps a little info, e.g. Discography or such. Your call, although it would add value to know where you are coming from.....
Last time I shared my identity on an online forum I wound up with some undesired attention so I've decided on an anonymity policy going forward. Kind of irrelevant as I don't think any of what I'm saying will make any more or less sense given my discography.

Quote:
However to claim that 'most of us' or 'a majority'. Not even here in this thread is that numerically correct.
When I say "us", I am referring to "people who work in/for higher-end markets producing music and audio intended for mass (national/worldwide) distribution". I feel pretty comfortable saying the majority feel that way.

Quote:
I mean everybody may Master at over -14dB LUFS, but is that a good thing? Kanye West may sell a lot of whatever, and Trump may actually have won an election, but those are actually sad reflections on people's choices. Something the music business is full of.
I read the above as undercutting your entire point. Just because a bunch of people have allegedly terrible HF rolloffs in their living rooms doesn't mean I'm going to let that change the way I make or monitor music.

Quote:
I would welcome your view on the question asked.
How can something in a flat space translate to a 6-10dB dulled?
It will sound 6-10db duller. (And I won't care because it sounded right in the studio, with the artist, with the reps, with the music sups, etc.) Can't please everyone with just one mix.
5
Share
Old 28th August 2018
  #104
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
I think it fair to say that you do not find it useful or preferred. In conjunction with perhaps a little info, e.g. Discography or such.
This demand that every poster here prove himself to you is unnecessary and delusional. I say "delusional" because it's so obviously a losing argument for you -- Thomas and Jens have clients who've experienced a lot more success than your "Billboard Chart number 4."

As for the substance, it's been explained over and over again but I'll try once more.

A typical domestic listening room has a downward sloping steady state frequency response because this is the summed response of speakers and room. Most common rooms have more high frequency absorption than low frequency absorption, so the summed response will slope downwards. However, the direct sound is generally flat in these same rooms. This is how loudspeaker manufacturers typically produce their speakers -- flat on-axis. This is because the ear/brain distinguishes between direct and room contributions, particularly at higher frequencies, and perceived timbre is dominated by the direct sound. (I'd recommend looking into the "precedence effect.") It would make no sense for a mixing/mastering engineer to alter the direct sound of his/her monitors in order to mimic the steady state frequency response of a home listening room. A more sensible option is to have the mixing/mastering engineer work with a flat direct sound, which matches the flat direct sound of a typical home listening environment.

If a particular mixing/mastering engineer finds it helpful to use a downward sloping house curve then I don't think anyone here is trying to stop him/her. But to act as if a flat curve in these professional rooms is a flaw, or to think that this is an advantage of rooms with thin porous absorption over professional rooms with proper bass treatment, then you are mistaken.

Last edited by mpos; 28th August 2018 at 09:46 PM.. Reason: grammar
6
Share
Old 28th August 2018
  #105
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
I work at the lowest end of the Acoustic Market, Thomas at the highest.
Quote:
It would be absurd to suggest that his PR and Mechanical Engineering skills somehow 'Trump' my Sonic skills.
maybe i am misunderstanding, but you think Thomas got to working at the highest end of the market via his PR skills? surely you do not really think that.

Quote:
I will ask again. Can anyone here propose a theory how audio tonally balanced in an Anechoic transfer function, would not sound radically different in one with HF slope reduced by 6-9dB?
afaik, NE/FTB rooms are not anechoic at all (Thomas/Jens please correct me if i'm wrong), but regardless of that, and whether the room has a 'flat' curve or your beloved B&K curve, the end user listening experience is an impossibly wide moving target.

cars, Beats, iphone speakers, laptop speakers, horrible Bose garbage with ridiculous bass, etc etc. and maybe there are some people out there who actually have a decent 'home system', but for sure it's in a room with no treatment and the FR is going to be all over the place.

we can't possibly control for all or any of that, so we make our rooms as neutral as we can, and make music sound good in there.
5
Share
Old 29th August 2018
  #106
Gear Guru
Reality Check

Quote:
NE/FTB rooms are not anechoic at all
They are for in terms of the transfer function from speaker to ear. Early reflections are typically -30dB within the early window, say 20mS.

This is a direct field, in effect Anechoic.

Domestic rooms (and many CRs) only do direct field within a very very small area. I believe it was Dr. Olive that pointed to equal amounts of DF and RT for the majority of listeners.

The same Dr. Olive's research shows that the majority of listeners, in a good sounding room, prefer to hear music with the room tone or a summed RT plus Eq added. Nobody likes listening to speakers in an Anechoic Space. JBL, Harman, EBU/boggy etc. go with this approach to translation.

These are just irrefutable facts.

As of now, not a single practitioner nor theoretician here, anonymous or world famous, has offered an explanation as to how a tonal balance experienced anechoically could possibly translate to the real world of rooms, cars, etc.
The Silence is Deafening.

Neutral is an illusion. Most of the world listens with an equal or greater amount of room tone than DF.

I am not suggesting that anyone do anything they don't find works for them. I am just stating facts and suggesting that Flat is a questionable ambition or goal, when the majority of listeners are hearing through a Rose Tinted Lens. Many of us have found this helpful.

More importantly I am stating a successful strategy. One shared by the two others here who do actually make finished product.

Redefine your budget room EQ 'flat' target curve to Harman's pro curve - Page 10

Toole:-
Quote:
We don’t yet have all the pieces of the puzzle, but we have enough to imagine that some carefully constructed research can provide the miss- ing links and validations. We do know, however, that some of the present recommendations and industry practices are not optimum and others are simply wrong.
UnTrained Melody....

The Titanic, room curves and other GS style OT wanderings-untrained-melody.png



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

Last edited by DanDan; 29th August 2018 at 01:38 AM..
1
Share
Old 29th August 2018
  #107
Deleted 4adc64a
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
More importantly I am stating a successful strategy. One shared by the two others here who do actually make finished product.
Yes, you are correct that if your idea of success is creating a mixing environment optimized for theoretical listening environments based on an average from a study, then a HF rolloff is probably a "successful strategy"!

For those of us with different definitions of success...

This is slightly OT, but I feel like it needs to be said before this thread turns into 20 pages of the same thing over and over:

Based on my deep-diving through a lot of GS Acoustics threads during the building of my own home space, I've observed that your posts in controversial threads take on a very familiar trajectory. You begin with a premise/conjecture that you have stumbled upon the "right" way of doing something (often contra to either established science and/or practice) and you provide some form of evidence (often questionably interpreted) supporting your position.

People challenge you on it, and you respond by hammering your "facts" ad nauseam while ignoring anything that directly refutes them while being somewhat rude and occasionally attacking other posters for slandering your character. As the tide begins to rise you then backtrack/narrow the debate until you've effectively said nothing at all but you avoid ever having to admit you were wrong or failed to understand the initial premise.

The frustrating thing is, unlike the traditional GS villains that I recommend everyone block as soon as they visit the forum (McTwins and Co), you do make salient points and bring up interesting resources, and you definitely are helpful to the novices (you taught me something!), so it wouldn't be correct to write you off entirely. And your constant challenging of the status quo certainly keeps things interesting. But you seem to have a real problem admitting wrong, and it takes a lot of threads to dark places that they just don't have to go!
6
Share
Old 29th August 2018
  #108
Gear Guru
The Sporting Life

I like exploring danthony.
There is another obvious explanation for the phenomenon you observe.
As regards, rude, insult, etc. if you wish to be a self appointed judge, it would be fair to observe the first and worst and repeating instances. But why would anyone want to be a self appointed self serving judge? Indeed why stay reading? It is easy to unsubscribe to threads or individuals. Judgement, why would anyone give themselves a false mandate to do that? Then let's add the context of general posting ethos. I riposte when attacked. Those that do instigate are few and serial. Jason has objected to this. Looks like a little relay team here doesn't it?

Jason earlier in this thread.
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. All the experts who are here sharing their knowledge do so for free and should be commended for their efforts not condemed.

Wrong is a useless word IMO.
It makes no sense to suggest that experiential facts I am relating, the same ones as deedee and Skol, are 'wrong'.
They are just honest facts. There are no wrong facts.

I see Floyd used the term 'simply wrong'. Not my style, but despite an obvious bias towards the populist Flat notion, he is honest. i.e. He is at the very least admitting that Olive's work vs Status Quo suggests a need for examination of the observed dichotomies.

These attacks on my ways and personality bring to mind a sporting phrase here.
'If you can't play the ball, play the man'.

I will kick the ball over to you, or anyone, again.

Can you offer a view on how a desired/achieved tonal balance established anechoically could possibly remain the same when listened to in a 6-10dB dulled environment?

Also, the previous unanswered question. Have you the measured response of any CR via which you have achieved translation in Mixing or Mastering?

DD

Last edited by DanDan; 29th August 2018 at 03:55 AM..
Old 29th August 2018
  #109
Lives for gear
sure. i have mine.

FR is +/-6 from 22-20k @ 1/24th smoothing. i was aiming for +/-5 and got there but for a stray peak/dip in the mids. but i got to the point where moving my empty chair 2" forward changed the measurement, and as i was ready to hang myself if i heard that damn REW sine sweep one more time, i decided the bragging rights weren't all that important and called it a day.

anyway, more importantly, except for a bit of ringing at 31 and a smaller bit at 62, the decay time is pretty much uniform around 120ms. all reflections are at least -20db down.

it sounds ****ing amazing in there.

i don't say that to brag.

my previous room had the normal sort of treatments that people do, floor to ceiling traps in the corners, 4" or 6" panels on the walls, some diffusion. it sounded good and i mastered a ton of records in there. but it never sounded great and i always felt like i was sort of guessing with the low end. i never measured that room but i'm sure the FR was nowhere near as good as the new room and very definitely the decay time was much longer in the low freqs.

the difference between that room and my new one is night and day. it's no contest. i honestly think the FR and imaging are better in my new room from BACK ON THE COUCH than they were in the sweet spot in my old room. i'm not exaggerating.

and sitting up front, it's just a joy. i will never ever go back to a half-assed treated room.

anyway, to answer your question: yes i have achieved translation in both mixing and mastering. and i achieved it effortlessly and had a ton of fun doing it.

have you ever actually worked in a good NE/FTB room?
3
Share
Old 29th August 2018
  #110
Deleted 4adc64a
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
I like exploring danthony.
There is another obvious explanation for the phenomenon you observe.
As regards, rude, insult, etc. if you wish to be a self appointed judge, it would be fair to observe the first and worst and repeating instances.
He started it is not a recognized defense in this court

Quote:
But why would anyone want to be a self appointed self serving judge? Indeed why stay reading? It is easy to unsubscribe to threads or individuals. Judgement, why would anyone give themselves a false mandate to do that? Then let's add the context of general posting ethos. I riposte when attacked. Those that do instigate are few and serial. Jason has objected to this. Looks like a little relay team here doesn't it?
I don't want to be a self appointed judge. I'd rather say nothing. (As I did when you started calling me "Nelly" a few posts back, completely unprovoked, so let's not pretend you don't play any role in this.)

But when I see someone repeatedly turning a valuable resource into something less, I eventually feel compelled to say something. I'm not exaggerating when I say I found instances of you fighting in every single topic I researched while building my studio -- VPRs, ISD gap, diffusion, etc. And wading through that was pretty annoying to read, and I'm sure correcting it was equally annoying for those who want to make sure this remains a valuable resource. Pretty cool to get the input of world class professionals for free. I don't want to see that go away.

Quote:
Wrong is a useless word IMO.
It makes no sense to suggest that experiential facts I am relating, the same ones as deedee and Skol, are 'wrong'.
They are just honest facts. There are no wrong facts.
There are no wrong facts. There are wrong conclusions derived as a result of interpreting these facts.

Quote:
Can you offer a view on how a desired/achieved tonal balance established anechoically could possibly remain the same when listened to in a 6-10dB dulled environment?
I offered my view on this already. See my earlier post. This is just not a really compelling line of argument. Common earbuds roll off hard in the lower octaves. Lots of people listen with those. Should we rolloff the lows to account for that too? Why not? Where does it end?

Quote:
Also, the previous unanswered question. Have you the measured response of any CR via which you have achieved translation in Mixing or Mastering?
Yes, ironically the one I built in my living room. I think you've actually seen the REW results. And I can promise you the untreated version wasn't translating, or I wouldn't have spend hundreds of hours building the thing.
3
Share
Old 29th August 2018
  #111
Lives for gear
 
Jantex's Avatar
 

DanDan, I am working in audio, but also have varous experiences in acoustics, based also on part of my formal education. I am far from being a professional acoustician, but understand the concepts. A mix produced in a flat environment and played back in a room with 6-10dB sloped will simply sound 6-10dB sloped, yes. But if it is spectrally balanced it will still sound good that way and it makes no point controlling for it. You simply will not hear that much detail and it will be a much more relaxed listening, which will not enable you to recognize many editing mistakes, which will be blurred in a 100Hz pounding presentation, which will be warm and slightly distant.

I am saying it once again, if you have not worked in FTB room designed by Thomas, your speculations mentioned here count nothing. I have been in a few rooms designed by Munro, Hidley and rooms designed by acousticians you mentioned, either have worked there or just visited them. It is just that none of them impressed me even slightly compared to that particular Thomas designed room. And I believe he keeps it to the highest standard, so I expect that any of his room I visit, it will give me the same response with negligible deviatons. Haven't seen the measurements of the room, but they feel right in every way a sound reproduction can. Very detailed but not fatiguing, with the best low end definition I had a chance to hear.

Besides, any engineer I know and collaborate with, none of them works with any way tilted HM and MF response in his room. Your notion of why some old control rooms didn't translate can be attributed to million of things. Many time their main monitors simply were pretty bad, delivering high SPL, but with bad crossover designes and were calibrated with a huge LF boost to cater the clients who usually didn't have great listening skills and were most easily impressed by heavily incresed low end. Often there was serious comb filtering present from rack shelves and large desks which led to fatigue and desire to decrease the HF content. And most of the times their design priorities were more for the looks than for acoustics. But even in these cases the engineers who have worked there for a longer time were able to shoot great mixes, while some guest engineer couldn't adapt to the monitoring in a week of work.

Our brains can adapt to any smooth frequency curve and can accept it as given in a matter of minutes, it is not hard at all. Listening to flat after being exposed to rolled of can sound extremely bright, while the other way around it will sound dark and muffled. But what happened to me with Thomas designed room was that it sounded 100% correct with my perception and other engineers in the room felt the same. So without any insult or any bad intentions, as you mention you work on the lower end of acoustics business...it is nothing wrong with that and I respect that you want to help people. But working on the highest end really is another story - there is no place for compromises and in the end there are none. And even thinking about that it is PR what made Thomas get all the big gigs, is really stupid and insulting. It is no fanboysm and I unfortunately will probably never be able to afford to be his customer, it is just that I really respect, what he does, because he really is at the top of the game. Send him a PM and arrange a meeting, book a flight from Ireland to Brussels (or contact any European engineer who resides in a room he designed) and then you are totally entitled to post your opinions, which I am absolutely sure will change immediately after hearing the sound presentation there.
7
Share
Old 29th August 2018
  #112
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
"The target for the direct sound should most likely be flat: neutral. As shown in Fig. 19(c), in “typical” cinemas and home listening rooms such loudspeakers should deliver predictably good sound over the mid-to-high frequency range with no intervention. No “calibration” may be necessary beyond compensating for screen loss in cinemas.

There is a difference between the level of the direct sound and that of the steady-state sound that increases at lower frequencies by an amount determined by the directivity of the loudspeaker and the reflectivity of the venue. Both direct and steady-state sounds are important to timbral perceptions, but the awkward reality is that in normal rooms both cannot be the same. Therefore, neither a steady-state room-curve nor a direct sound curve can be a definitive descriptor of timbre for all programs in all venues at all frequencies. 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.

In small rooms, in-situ measurements are necessary at low frequencies because of standing-waves, and remedial measures will almost certainly be necessary. Multiple subwoofer strategies are able to reduce the seat-to-seat variations, allowing equalization to be effective for more than one listener. Adjacent-boundary issues exist in all rooms. These will be revealed by spatially-averaged in-room measurements and they are responsive to equalization. In the end, a single metric that does everything remains elusive, meaning that the proper calibration of a sound-reproducing system in a large venue of unknown pedigree may require some time and a knowledgeable technical team. However, it needs only to be done once, after which periodic routine checks employing simple measurements can ensure the continued functioning of all the elements. Standardizing an-anechoic data set for loudspeakers would be a significant simplification to the entire process.

We are left with a combination of questions and answers, but at this time there is enough information to think about some universal guidelines for sound reproduction—anywhere it occurs. The starting point would be the delivery of an accurate, neutral, direct sound. The fact that there is a rise in bass sound level in the short (<150 ms) interval following the direct sound is a variable for which there is no practical control—it is room and source-directivity dependent. Humans may well regard this phenomenon as a normal component of room sound, in which case it is not an “error” in need of fixing but merely information about the listening environment. It means that a steady-state room curve should rise by some amount at low frequencies.
"

AES E-Library >> The Measurement and Calibration of Sound Reproducing Systems
4
Share
Old 29th August 2018
  #113
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
I would welcome your view on the question asked.
How can something in a flat space translate to a 6-10dB dulled?DD
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
Can you offer a view on how a desired/achieved tonal balance established anechoically could possibly remain the same when listened to in a 6-10dB dulled environment?
Dan, I don't know how many more times you can possibly dodge the answer that was given to you multiple times.

Dealing with room modes thread: OT discussion
Dealing with room modes thread: OT discussion
Dealing with room modes thread: OT discussion
Dealing with room modes thread: OT discussion
Dealing with room modes thread: OT discussion
Dealing with room modes thread: OT discussion
Dealing with room modes thread: OT discussion
Dealing with room modes thread: OT discussion

It translate because the direct sound (so gated measurement - you look only at the direct sound from speakers - a short time window) in your living room is also flat. Which is what your brain picks up first and serves as a reference - as Mike and others told you many times over:

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpos
This is because the ear/brain distinguishes between direct and room contributions, particularly at higher frequencies, and perceived timbre is dominated by the direct sound. (I'd recommend looking into the "precedence effect.")
The steady state (un-gated, a long time window) response in your living room will be tilted because when you measure that way, again as stated many times around, the response you see is now the sum of direct sound and room reflections which create such a slope due to their destructive and constructive interactions in time/phase. Which is also by definition unique to each room and setup. But what your auditory system locks to is the direct sound.

When mixing in a proper "flat" CR you are essentially giving the listener in his living room as accurate a representation of sound as possible by feeding him a well balanced direct sound from the speakers.

In CR, typically the gated and ungated responses are about the exact same. Because they are controlled environments, hence there are very little to no contributions of the room.

You are over-simplifying and making cheap shortcuts when you say that in CR the tonal balance is established anechoically. A CR may have a speaker to engineer path that is effectively anechoic (so direct sound only, except for floor effect and mixing console/desk reflections and some edge diffraction here and there) but remember that for the engineers the room's 'ambiance' isn't perceived as anechoic at all (due to reflective surfaces not 'seen' by the speakers but that interact with other sources of sound in the room like voice, noise from walking, moving objects, typing). Hence the brain can calibrate to the space (how this happens is amazing, but too long a conversation to develop now) and because it can correlate a number of environmental parameters/cues the auditory system is also 'flat'. Which is an absolutely necessary condition to being able to make proper tonal (EQ), dynamic and time adjustments (delay, reverbs).

In a real anechoic space, where a human would not percieve an actual space/environment, the auditory system is 'stressed' and its response shifts considerably. It will enhance perception of / sensitivity to HF, become much more sensitive to timing of events to name a few. To the point that making a proper tonal balance is very difficult, as well as balancing reverbs, delays and other time factors needed in a good mix.

So, no, these mixes are in effect not established anechoically. Unless for some reason you decide to look at only half the picture/data. Reality is a complex scenario of interactions. Not a simple dichotomy.

Last edited by Northward; 29th August 2018 at 10:49 AM.. Reason: Clarification
6
Share
Old 29th August 2018
  #114
Gear Guru
Quote:
It translate because the direct sound (so gated measurement - you look only at the direct sound from speakers - a short time window) in your living room is also flat.
I have provided Short and Long Gated Measurements in a CR and in a Disco. There are no differences between any of them.

In practice it does not translate, see FitzGerald, Skol, deedee, boggy, EBU, Hodas, The New York Curve.
Even yourself has agreed that CR's often fail.

Very few if any people hear the direct on axis sound in Home, Home Theatre, Car, Cinema, see Olive. The only one to hear an actual DF is the Mix Engineer, and audience in headphones.

Even for a single listener in the isoceles triangle each ear hears a combination of both speakers with one delayed. Nobody Nose what a Measurement Mic is hearing.
Added to that big problem, each ear receives a massive of Room early reflections. Massive comb filtering.


I said the Transfer function in a Non Environment Room is effectively anechoic.
We all know that.
For sources other than the speakers, human, reflections are provided.
We all know that.
These are the basic principles as per Newell.
The creature comfort issue has been addressed since Hidley.
We all know that.

We have agreed that CRs often fail to translate. We also know that the majority are voiced flat. Most of those designs try to address the creature comfort issue caused by the effective anechoicity. So why do some work while others fail spectacularly causing dull mixes in the real world?

The factual experience related by actual practitioners here, deedee, Skol, me, are common knowledge.
The are clearly identified in Olive and Tooles Research.
It is gobsmacking that you are simply blanking all this evidence of fact in favour of selective theorising.

Overall T, your orchestrated relay team is causing only repetition.
I have presented the evidence, repeatedly.
I am quite prepared to have a civil debate on the substantial issue, the fact that very few hear a direct field in the home or car etc. How about you ask your team to butt out and leave this to us?
It would dramatically improve the signal to noise ratio and lead to an agreement on the factual situation quicker. Also please, stop lobbying in the background.

Quote:
Not a simple dichotomy.
Nothing is really simple, but it would be a good start to recognise that there are in fact an issue. Toole has.

Quote:
We don’t yet have all the pieces of the puzzle, but we have enough to imagine that some carefully constructed research can provide the miss- ing links and validations. We do know, however, that some of the present recommendations and industry practices are not optimum and others are simply wrong.
DD

Last edited by DanDan; 29th August 2018 at 03:27 PM..
1
Share
Old 29th August 2018
  #115
Gear Guru
Alternative World

Quote:
you started calling me "Nelly"
"Nelly" is "Nelly the elephant, who packed her trunk and ran away with the Circus" a reference to The Elephant in the Room.

It is utterly absurd for you to think you were being called an elephant danthony.
As that is the source of your pique, please don't expect anything you say to be taken seriously.

Quote:
Common earbuds roll off hard in the lower octaves.
Really?

DD

Last edited by DanDan; 29th August 2018 at 03:15 PM..
1
Share
Old 29th August 2018
  #116
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
Toole´s research is in stark contrast to your personal opinion.
Old 29th August 2018
  #117
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
The factual experience related by actual practitioners here, deedee, Skol, me, are common knowledge.
The are clearly identified in Olive and Tooles Research.
It is gobsmacking that you are simply blanking all this evidence of fact in favour of selective theorising.
(...)
Overall T, your orchestrated relay team is causing only repetition.
I have presented the evidence, repeatedly.
I am quite prepared to have a civil debate on the substantial issue, the fact that very few hear a direct field in the home or car etc. How about you ask your team to butt out and leave this to us?
It would dramatically improve the signal to noise ratio and lead to an agreement on the factual situation quicker.
(...) DD
Danthonymusic's post about your general behaviour is absolutely spot on. There is no civil conversation left to have here. You are impermeable to any sensible reasoning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted 4adc64a
People challenge you on it, and you respond by hammering your "facts" ad nauseam while ignoring anything that directly refutes them while being somewhat rude and occasionally attacking other posters for slandering your character. As the tide begins to rise you then backtrack/narrow the debate until you've effectively said nothing at all but you avoid ever having to admit you were wrong or failed to understand the initial premise.
I believe here too you indeed failed to understand, again, the initial premises.

There is nothing left to debate about the subject. You've made your point ad nauseam, others and I have stated our points of view ad nauseam too.

We're done.

************************************************************

MOD hat on: discussion has ran its course many times over now. I'll close the thread in about 24h. Those that still have something meaningful to add can do so in that time period, or send me a PM if they want the thread re-opened to post a meaningful addition after that deadline. Anybody disagreeing with the decision can PM me or any other moderator in charge of this sub-forum.
4
Share
Old 29th August 2018
  #118
Lives for gear
 

misuse of mod power?

now that you've shouted down an inconvenient voice you are going to close the thread?!

i will want to further comment but i'm busy now - hope you'll have the courage to add my post (due by the end of this week) later on although you probably will not like it...
1
Share
Old 29th August 2018
  #119
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
now that you've shouted down an inconvenient voice you are going to close the thread?!

i will want to further comment but i'm busy now - hope you'll have the courage to add my post (due by the end of this week) later on although you probably will not like it...
Read again, I'm leaving the thread opened for another 24h so those who wish to can make a last post. How is that mod power abuse? Let me know.

I don't care whether I'll like it or not. If it has meaningful reliable info and adds to the conversation, it'll be posted. If it's just another useless rant, it won't. So be thorough and clear. I hope that's clear.
3
Share
Old 29th August 2018
  #120
Deleted 4adc64a
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
"Nelly" is "Nelly the elephant, who packed her trunk and ran away with the Circus" a reference to The Elephant in the Room.

It is utterly absurd for you to think you were being called an elephant danthony.
As that is the source of your pique, please don't expect anything you say to be taken seriously.
I looked it up and the Circus elephant is spelled "Nellie," and yes it is absurd to think that you were calling me one. It's not absurd to think you were using the common derogatory term "Nelly" which means either a silly person or something that cannot be printed in this forum, depending on where you're from. Regardless, I don't care beyond pointing out an instance of general hypocrisy.

Quote:
really?
Yes https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AppleEarPods.pdf

(You will probably also be surprised to learn that almost no one listens to music in living rooms anymore anyway 2017 U.S. Music Year-End Report )
1
Share
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump