The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Greatest studio designs
Old 29th January 2019
  #61
Gear Maniac
 
thomlin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nms View Post
Man.. I cringe whenever I see a rear wall full of diffusers that close to the engineer. Are you trying to listen to the music, or the room?
If the face of the diffusors will be closer than 10' from the engineer, I usually don't recommend it to clients.
If I had the space, maybe it wouldn't be my first choice either to have diffusors sniffing my neck. But in my room I got better measurements results from diffusors (WIngs), actually if not perfect at least very close, than from absorbtion and bass traps all over the place (with advices from studiobuilder)


Quote:
Originally Posted by nms View Post
They clearly were forced to make the best of a room that was poor in size. I know Northward's work enough to know he won't even accept such clients, as the size is below the minimum requirement for his rooms, and he doesn't allow them to be compromised in such a way.
:
And who would if one could be the Control room designer for the most coveted studios in the World. But not everyone is and also certainly not everyone have the need or money for a Sterling Sound Studio


Quote:
Originally Posted by nms View Post
No disrespect to Cosmos Mastering, but they are quite small in comparison to Northward's client Sterling Sound (#1 mastering agency in the world with facilities in NY, NJ, Nashville) where he just designed ALL of their new rooms.
They hired Northward because he's the best in the business.
If you're not familiar with Sterling, here's a link to their discography of 16,548 releases.
I would never question his skills, but that doesn't justifie for marginalize other studiobuilders that builds great and respected studios... with and without SMT Products.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nms View Post
There are no shortage of people who have an extremely high regard for the work he does. You simply won't find anyone who has a higher technical standard in studio design. His rooms are on another level compared to Ingemar's.. both visually and technically speaking:
I can imagine, but that's only a fragment of all studios and studiobuilders.
AND like already said, doesn't justifie for Calling people parrots, accusations of fraud etc etc. Different needs, budgets, tastes, prerequisites should make room for different conceps.

Even though I don't have NW skills and knowledge, I have enough to hear and measure to decide what's good or not. (well I could use my trained Eye, but I prefer my ears) ( ;
Old 29th January 2019
  #62
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomlin View Post
If I had the space, maybe it wouldn't be my first choice either to have diffusors sniffing my neck. But in my room I got better measurements results from diffusors (WIngs), actually if not perfect at least very close, than from absorbtion and bass traps all over the place (with advices from studiobuilder)




And who would if one could be the Control room designer for the most coveted studios in the World. But not everyone is and also certainly not everyone have the need or money for a Sterling Sound Studio




I would never question his skills, but that doesn't justifie for marginalize other studiobuilders that builds great and respected studios... with and without SMT Products.



I can imagine, but that's only a fragment of all studios and studiobuilders.
AND like already said, doesn't justifie for Calling people parrots, accusations of fraud etc etc. Different needs, budgets, tastes, prerequisites should make room for different conceps.

Even though I don't have NW skills and knowledge, I have enough to hear and measure to decide what's good or not. (well I could use my trained Eye, but I prefer my ears) ( ;
You can measure the effects of the wings in your room: bravo.
Old 29th January 2019
  #63
Gear Maniac
 
thomlin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinococcus View Post
You can measure the effects of the wings in your room: bravo.
Can you please tell me what you want to tell the world with such gifted comment?
Old 29th January 2019
  #64
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomlin View Post
Can you please tell me what you want to tell the world with such gifted comment?
At my knowledge, the measurements of the diffusion require conditions that not present in the room (space) and not in possession by the operator (number of mics).
Old 30th January 2019
  #65
Lives for gear
Tip to make the thread interesting:
Attached Thumbnails
Greatest studio designs-capture-d-ecran-2019-01-30-10.10.55.png  
Old 30th January 2019
  #66
Gear Maniac
 
thomlin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinococcus View Post
At my knowledge, the measurements of the diffusion require conditions that not present in the room (space) and not in possession by the operator (number of mics).
Don’t mean to sound rude, but who’s stopping you?
Old 31st January 2019
  #67
The main argument here IMHO is to define a frame of reference. Most of studio owners on a budget are aiming to "functional" solutions. A good compromise seen by scientific POV is still a wrong result. Acousticians experts so may divide in 2 large species and ì understand why we feel some extreme positions. A professional who does his job helping a studio owner to find a compromise in a room is literally doing his job but is like a mastering engineer who uses his knowledge to let a [email protected] mix to be perceived by average listener as "acceptable". Is objectively doing something to achieve a subjective result. OTOH acoustic matter is a science and is one of the few branches of professional audio where we can find objective "scores" of performances. So, as for sound quality of records we cannot achieve state of the art masters starting from compromised recordings, probably in acoustics any solution based on compromised sizes of the room cannot lean to any professional hi "scores". Do a company who accepts commissions on flawed bases is fraud? No. Does that change physic's laws? No. So i can understand why talking deeply of minor details on a severely flawed base may drive nuts a professional.
Old 31st January 2019
  #68
Gear Nut
 

I can't seem to help wading in inappropriately...

I think the main issue is;

You can make measureable changes using comprehensive measurements and treatments based in widely accepted, accessible, and repeatable science. That's how you stay on the (mostly) firm ground occupied by professionals, and also where you can count on a measure of comparative value for your money, DIY or not.

You can also throw some stuff on your walls that is not supported by commonly accepted measurements and science, and hear changes in your room.

If you're not A, you're B.
If you think you're A, and want to charge for it, objective measurements according to commonly accepted measurement practices should be available before you collect a dime.
If you're B, great, but you should invest very little money and time (yours or someone else's).

I don't know if "wings" and the rest will eventually prove to be A or B.

But don't get mad if everyone assumes at best "B until proven A."
Old 6th February 2019
  #69
Gear Addict
 

Some other works of art to add to this thread…

BlackBird Studio C by D’Antonio/Massenburg
Greatest studio designs-blackbird-studio-c.jpg

Image Sound Barcelona by Newell
Greatest studio designs-newell.jpg

Music School (Canberra) by John Sayers
Greatest studio designs-johnsayers.jpg

Rose Room Recording by John Brandt
Greatest studio designs-rose_room_recording68-1280x720_c.jpg

Live room by Rod Gervais
Greatest studio designs-rod-gervais.jpg
Attached Thumbnails
Greatest studio designs-blackbird-studio-c.jpg   Greatest studio designs-johnsayers.jpg   Greatest studio designs-newell.jpg   Greatest studio designs-rod-gervais.jpg   Greatest studio designs-rose_room_recording68-1280x720_c.jpg  

Old 8th February 2019
  #70
Reality check

I promised a compilation of Lennart Nilsson's references. Difficult to summarize a 45-year career in a single post at Gearslutz. In any case, here follows something that should straighten out the backwash that occurred in Mr Northward´s itinerary.

Following information is collected from Lennart´s own website:
LN Akustikmiljo AB

and his youtube channel:
YouTube

and is then translated from Swedish into the English language.

According to this link Lennart has designed more then 1000 studios:
Studio

It all started back in early 70´s with an employment at one of Sweden's largest companies at that time, Televerket. Lennart worked, among other things, on improving speech clarity by working with the signal path in telecommunications.

Later on he worked for 7 years for state owned Swedish National Radio and TV, to improve speech clarity by working with the acoustics of the studios around the country. Lennart set a new standard.

To let the human audio perception show whats important in a listening environment. And not believe only in matematical and acoustic theories, Lennart describes himself as the most important factor in his long career.

This important experience and conclusion after the years at Televerket and Sveriges Radio led to an employment with Brüel & Kjær, where Lennars worked with measurements of acoustics and developement of measuring standards. Lennart worked at Brüel & Kjær with this for 15 years.
https://www.bksv.com/en/

As an example of Lennart´s psychoacoustic knowledge he was invited as one of the leading speakers to explain the advantages of the early reflections in front of 200 acoustics at EIAS 2011. At EIAS 2015 where Trevor Cox was one of the leading speakers, a forest tour with measurements was an appreciated feature.

So lets be inspired by Lennart and do reality checks!

From Lennart Nilsson´s homepage:

”This means that early reflections are important for gathering information, especially during the first 20 milliseconds. This effect can be experienced when speaking in a forest where the trees have bare trunks, a beech forest, for example. In this case, the clarity of speech is very good even at long distances. On the later other hand, if one were to speak in a completely open, snow covered field, it would be much more difficult to hear the speech at a distance. This is due to the assistance of the early reflections from the trees in the forest.”

Northward:

So all the other ER generated by trees will be lower in level than our first ER 1.5m away and quite evenly spread in time. Which means they can't add up significantly. ER in this case have little if not nothing to do with enhancing speech clarity. Contrary to what is claimed in the Resolution article, "dense broadband low reflection sound field found in a common forest" do not help our Ear/Brain combination to minimize masking effects compared to an environment without such properties (free field), but in fact increases masking effect by reducing sensitivity to low level events and overall clarity.

Reality check:





Lennart Nilsson:

”The brain has difficulty in assimilating discrete reflections of short duration. As one of the keystones in psychoacooustic is the aprox 1000 times timeconstant difference between the ears and the brain process.”

Northward:

”The brain is in fact really good at it”.

Reality check:

The time difference between the ears and the brain:


Masking demos from University of Victoria, Canada:

Perceptual Audio Demonstrations

The first forward masking demonstration:

http://www.ece.uvic.ca/~elec499/2003...os/track21.wav

Playing a masking tone and then a tone that is semitone down with a 100 ms delay in between. Notice that you can hear both tones even though the second tone is decreased in -3 dB increments.

The second forward masking demo plays the same two tones with a time delay of 10 ms.
Masking occurs in this demonstration.

How many steps are audible before the second tone is masked?

http://www.ece.uvic.ca/~elec499/2003...os/track22.wav

In the latter case, it is actually not possible to separate the two tones after about -6 dB

Back masking demo:

http://www.ece.uvic.ca/~elec499/2003...os/track23.wav

http://www.ece.uvic.ca/~elec499/2003...os/track25.wav

These are extra interesting, as the researchers find it difficult to explain why a tone less than 10ms before a stronger tone disappears. It is clearly heard when the gap is 100ms.

Lennart Nisson:

”A sound that is 1 ms , sounds much lower in level than the one that is 100 ms long despite the fact that the amplitude is the same.
A estimated distinguishes of 10-20 dB in subjective level. By lengthening the short sound in time without affecting the amplitude increases gradually, the subjective level and thus reduces different kind of masking effects relative to other frequencies / sounds. This also explain why we must measure peak level (0,05ms rise time) to keep track on hearing harmful levels the brain dont percive.
A powerfull example is a gunshot in the open field with a peak level of over 150dB and it just sound as pops but listen to a rock concert at the same level is not a good idea”

From SMT´s Wing Pdf:

”Consequently, when recording with microphones very close to the source, we reduce the late energy but also the beneficial early reflections. One way to restore the sound of the room without increasing the amount of energy is to install Wing modules (=broadband time delay lines). They are suitable for nearfield use during mixing ,recording as well as when listening.

From Floyd Toole´s book Sound Reproduction - The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms (Audio Engineering Society Presents):

"Reverberation alone could increase our sensitivity to a medium or low-Q resonance by about 10 dB – which is a huge effect. This latter fact explains why music is so much more satisfying in a reverberant space than outdoors. Timbrally richer because we can hear more of the resonant subtleties, but it also explains why the toughest test for loudspeaker accuracy is in a room with some reflections, and why headphones (which have no added reflections) have an inherent advantage, and can sound acceptable when measurements indicate that there really are resonant problems. Killing all early reflections with absorbers not only changes imaging, it also makes loudspeakers with poorly controlled directivity sound better. All interesting stuff for audio folk.”
Northward:

”Early reflections of a good quality semantic signal do not enhance clarity ofthe signal in any way.
It in facts lowers the clarity of the signal” The lengthening of the Haas/precedence effect does not contribute to a better perception of the quality of sound
either as there is no such thing as a "second chance": what the brain wants is to remove reflections within the integration time so as to reduce localization uncertainty. .
Northward ”Basically completely avoiding adding any secondary maskers (room
reflections) to the direct speaker signal. Greatly enhancing the perception of detail within the recording.”

Reality check:

Broadband diffusion vs broadband absorbtion







This thread has resulted in a kind of conflict between different concepts of designing studios. For example we have a GS-moderator that ridicule those who choose to use the ambechoic concept (which makes him unsuitable as a moderator, as I mentioned earlier).

With my post here, I try to look at it all from a broader perspective, highlighting other people's references.
And above all: Present everything in sounding examples, so that each of the readers in this thread can form their own opinion. Read and listen and read and listen again and again.

I´m rebuildning my own control room at the moment. At first I hired acoustician and engineer Ingvar Öhman, who has the best NE-listening room I have ever experienced. The blueprints were completed and materials purchased. Then I started testing one of the other concepts in the S O S guide, which proved to suit me better. The ambechoic concept. Both theoretical and lab measurements as well as my own listening experience made the choice for me.

S O S guide to control room design:

www.soundonsound.com/techniques/sos-guide-control-room-design

Sound on Sound´s Final Remarks

”When considering which room design philosophy to follow, it is important to consider your own personal preferences. One of the reasons so many different control–room designs have emerged is because there is not one perfect acoustic solution for a control room. If you have access to other studios, then you should do as architects do before building grand concert halls: do a listening tour to find out which style of control room sounds best to you.”

It is similar to the question of how we can use all these reviews of preamps, microphones etc. According to what I have come up with, one can read for a commitment and interest, then you MUST listen and form one's own opinion. If you buy a microphone, preamp, or a design concept for your studio, then maybe you have cool stuff, but you haven't learned anything.

With this post I´m trying to correct things that has been written further back in the thread and that I think is wrong.
I also invites all readers to provide their knowledge both by reading what has been written AND listening, in order to form their own opinion.

So to make this thread really interresting, you who comment, please tell if you also listened to the audio files / videos. Tell us what you hear! AND also tell what you believe in theoretically.

Last edited by Berndalen; 11th February 2019 at 10:56 PM.. Reason: Link update - One of the links did not work in original post
Old 8th February 2019
  #71
Gear Nut
 

So my first thought is that if wings produce some kind of appreciably time delayed reflections, there would be readily available measurements comparing them to untreated walls, absorption, and other diffusion methods. Right?
Old 9th February 2019
  #72
Gear Maniac
 
thomlin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Best View Post
So my first thought is that if wings produce some kind of appreciably time delayed reflections, there would be readily available measurements comparing them to untreated walls, absorption, and other diffusion methods. Right?
Great idea, would be nice if someone could arrange a valid setup with measurements to compare different concepts. For example to start with, an empty room with untreated walls compared to a NW sterling sound room.

Your thought/conclusion is absolutely right about “appreciably” . I can listen more than twice as long without being ear fatigue now with wings on all sides of the room.

There is some measurements on GS if you look around.
Old 13th February 2019
  #73
Lives for gear
 
Bjorn Omholt's Avatar
 

I find RFZ/LEDE room with broadband quality diffusers the best by far. It combines an highly accurate stereo image with loads of energy and spaciousness. While I can used to very dry rooms, it's not what I prefer.
Old 13th February 2019
  #74
Lives for gear
\
\
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Best View Post
So my first thought is that if wings produce some kind of appreciably time delayed reflections, there would be readily available measurements comparing them to untreated walls, absorption, and other diffusion methods. Right?
It's a "I hold in my hand a vile of acid that will dissolve anything" situation though.

Basic physics of acoustics tells us that an object has to be large relative to the wavelength it would affect. A diffuser big enough to diffuse (most) everything in the audible spectrum looks like blackbird studio C.

Without any need for testing, we can know for sure that the wings product can only affect above maybe 1k and above or so based on its size. Also we know that diffusers such as this will only diffuse up to a certain frequency, say maybe 5-6k.

So the rather obvious issue here is that out of 10 audible octaves, only maybe 2-3 are getting treated.

If you compare SMT to say Boggy, Boggy also advocates for a quasi-ambechoic response in his "my room" design, with the big caveat that the phase grating diffusers he uses allow lower frequencies to pass to broadband absorption beneath.

Last edited by RyanC; 13th February 2019 at 03:28 PM..
Old 13th February 2019
  #75
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomlin View Post
Great idea, would be nice if someone could arrange a valid setup with measurements to compare different concepts. For example to start with, an empty room with untreated walls compared to a NW sterling sound room.

Your thought/conclusion is absolutely right about “appreciably” . I can listen more than twice as long without being ear fatigue now with wings on all sides of the room.

There is some measurements on GS if you look around.
I don't see why before and after is necessary. Thomas has shared a sliced ETC showing -60dB in the 63Hz band in just 60ms. This is exceptional performance. Can you share something similar?

If not, there isn't much to debate here as far as I'm concerned. One party has shown world class measurements, one has not.
Old 13th February 2019
  #76
Gear Maniac
 
thomlin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
I don't see why before and after is necessary.
I was ironic (but I understand it wasn't obvious) and I agree 100%, my suggestion was as silly as the example I quoted.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
Thomas has shared a sliced ETC showing -60dB in the 63Hz band in just 60ms. This is exceptional performance. Can you share something similar?
Why? .

Once again you don't get it, no one doubt his skills, it's about the phenomenon regarding a group of people, including NW, acting as autocrats spreading misleading information without facts. Just statements made from opinions, with a Little grain of bullying so no one’s missing that people that use and speak for wing concept are idiots. Only allowed but also encourage in this subforum. To me it sometimes seems a little like the Dunning-Kruger effect, but that’s my opinion.

There are enough measurements showing that wing, aswell as other concepts, works in CR aswell as other environments.
Old 13th February 2019
  #77
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomlin View Post
There are enough measurements showing that wing, aswell as other concepts, works in CR aswell as other environments.
Can you link me to them? Or better yet, in in less time than it takes to argue, you could measure your room and post the mdat.
Old 13th February 2019
  #78
Gear Maniac
 
thomlin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
Can you link me to them? Or better yet, in in less time than it takes to argue, you could measure your room and post the mdat.
So you mean you form an opinion without bothering to search for facts and expect me to take my time to do what I’ve already done... again?

Use the searchfunction or even better, find a studio of high standards with wings and form your opinion build on selfexperience. And while you’re there, bring a microphone, measure and see for yourself.

Last edited by thomlin; 13th February 2019 at 10:57 PM.. Reason: Spelling
Old 14th February 2019
  #79
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomlin View Post
So you mean you form an opinion without bothering to search for facts and expect me to take my time to do what I’ve already done... again?
The only opinion I'm forming here is that you seem to be afraid of empirical data and measurements. I searched and all I can find is one shady looking ETC, and no full mdat that anyone can dig into a bit.

Of course this is the Burden of Proof logical fallacy.

On top of that, in maybe 1/10th the time that you have spent typing in this thread you could have measured the room and posted the mdat.

As for me, I think ambechoic rooms are super interesting where the goal can be realized above schroeder at least. But that's quite a herculean task, and then begs the question of how does it ALSO address below Schroeder. There was an interesting studio I remember seeing a while back that used omni speakers (in horizontal plane) in an oval shaped room. That's a pretty interesting concept if one can figure out how to handle cleaning up the bass. But as always the proof is in the pudding.

Often these types of things might offer some benefit in one frequency range, at the expense of losses in others, which is typical with physics, but I'm not inclined to think that this sort of thing is qualified for a thread called "Greatest Studio Designs". If it is to someone's taste or not, Blackbird studio C is worthy of this thread. SMT, or any panelized product, is not.
Old 14th February 2019
  #80
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
Blackbird studio C is worthy of this thread.
Why?
Old 15th February 2019
  #81
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by bert stoltenborg View Post
Why?
Well, to me, a thread titled 'worlds greatest studio designs' would be about the best bespoke studio designs that realize the highest levels of the various criteria/philosophy. Blackbird Studio C is the world's greatest expression of the ambechoic philosophy. Someone may prefer a LEDE/RFZ room, and also offer some of the best expressions of that philosophy, and that is what I think we should expect here.

But I don't think a thread with this title should waste much time with ~100mm panels stuck on the walls, no matter which criteria they partially resemble.
Old 19th February 2019
  #82
Gear Maniac
 
thomlin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
The only opinion I'm forming here is that you seem to be afraid of empirical data and measurements. I searched and all I can find is one shady looking ETC, and no full mdat that anyone can dig into a bit.
With the description "shady" ETC (without a link) the patronizing continuous together with "parrot noise", accusations of fraud, the advice to jump from a 3 AND 5 floor to concrete, to proof laws of physics (since "these" morans don't seem to understand).

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
I don't think a thread with this title should waste much time with ~100mm panels stuck on the walls, no matter which criteria they partially resemble..
Just FYI, wings are 180-250mm deep and the design's completely outside the Schröder box. The nearfield broadband temporal diffusion (200 to above 20000Hz) can be listened to in Berndalens reality check videos in an earlier post.
A short explanation I borrowed from FB, kind of explains and shows that we're talking about apples and oranges.
Dealing with room modes: resonators vs. hefty absorption vs. subwoofers

_______________________________________________________

I would never call my studio greatest studio design, but it for sure shows very good measurements, especially considering the prerequisites.

Dealing with room modes: resonators vs. hefty absorption vs. subwoofers

It makes it kind of valid info to the thread since two of the greatest Scandinavian acoustics and studiobuilders who do research, uses and speaks for the concept, got questioned (if not mocked) earlier, by a colleague in the same business. And these fine measurements gets me thinking, if you can get these kind of result from quite lousy conditions (that most acousticians would define as hopeless), then imagine what they can do with a studio from perfect preconditions.
Old 20th February 2019
  #83
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
Berndalen & Thomlin,

If you add up all the lifetime work of the currently 5 busiest guys in the industry in North America and Europe combined you won't get a 1000 professional studio designs. A pro design being a full shell design and build.

If your idea of a pro studio design is adding panels to an office space or a bedroom or working on improving speech clarity in a Radio station studio, then Glenn @ GIK could easily claim to have designed 10000+ of them by now.

Those are two very different things and industries. Claiming to have designed 1000+ pro studios is simply BS.

As usual, you're not bringing anything new or remotely substantial to the table, just the usual rambling, and I very much agree with what RyanC has said.

You also seem to still be very confused by a number of things. One of them being the difference between a performance space (a Live Room) and a Control Room's response.

No one has ever claimed that playing a Cello in a Non-Environment (which are hemi-anechoic environments only for the speakers to room response, not engineer to room) was necessarily a good idea - although I've seen it done with great success multiple times. Most acoustic instruments sound "right" and musicians perform better supported by a room/space, and it gives the recording plenty more width and depth information given the right recording technique.

Live rooms have to have an acoustic signature, they are colored by design: they have a modal response and are full of early reflections. But they are still controlled to a certain extent so they are fit for particular instruments (pianos, drums, strings etc) often using a mix of shell geometry, geometrical and temporal diffusion, absorption etc. basically taming the room's response sufficiently so it's usable. Getting these rooms to sound right while performing in them and through the microphones/recording is where the difficulty in designing these spaces lies. That's a fine line.

Once the acoustic instrument has been recorded in the live room, all the necessary environmental info is contained within the recording. If it's a dry take or electronic/sample based track, then reverb, delays etc can be added in the mix to artificially create and tailor such an environment to taste.

Showing videos comparing speech recordings in an anechoic chamber and a forest, and then somehow claiming that this is for some reason related to control room design which are sound processing spaces and not recording spaces does not make any sense. BTW, most if not all non-classical voice recordings today are done in basically anechoic or close to anechoic scenarios (booth, gobos, close micing techniques). I don't feel like the raw tracks miss any sort of articulation or clarity.

Control rooms are neutral environments, their task is to be transparent so what you hear is strictly what is within the recording, including the various masking effects that are an intrinsic component of the recording. If a snare is too dry/short and room mics (which are technically adding early and late room reflections to the snare close mic) aren't enough to give it more air and weight, then you add reverb (reflections).

The stereo image width, strength of center image, depth and level of detail in a NE, FTB or RFZ design is quite something to experience. It's fully immersive.

Why you think that adding those wings in a Control Room environment could possibly yield more accuracy over a FTB, RFZ or NE technique is a curious way of understanding control room acoustics.

I'd also suggest you think for a minute about how MP3 and other compression algorithms work, and how that very much conflicts with all what is claimed about the wings.
Old 22nd February 2019
  #84
Gear Addict
 
syncussion's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berndalen View Post
From Lennart Nilsson´s homepage:

”This means that early reflections are important for gathering information, especially during the first 20 milliseconds. This effect can be experienced when speaking in a forest where the trees have bare trunks, a beech forest, for example. In this case, the clarity of speech is very good even at long distances. On the later other hand, if one were to speak in a completely open, snow covered field, it would be much more difficult to hear the speech at a distance. This is due to the assistance of the early reflections from the trees in the forest.”

Northward:

So all the other ER generated by trees will be lower in level than our first ER 1.5m away and quite evenly spread in time. Which means they can't add up significantly. ER in this case have little if not nothing to do with enhancing speech clarity. Contrary to what is claimed in the Resolution article, "dense broadband low reflection sound field found in a common forest" do not help our Ear/Brain combination to minimize masking effects compared to an environment without such properties (free field), but in fact increases masking effect by reducing sensitivity to low level events and overall clarity.

Reality check:




Of course Northward is correct.
And if we check speech in a forest with reflections from the ground and trees this will make it louder vs the same person speaking in an anechoic room if the distance is the same. Louder is of course easier to hear/understand. But this has nothing to do with speakers other than the very slightly elevated harmonic distortion a speaker will give to produce the same SPL in an anechoic room vs a room with reflections.
But even if we were to not take that into account these videos don't even come close to giving a proper "reality check".
What also has to be taken into account is that reflections will come from off-axis which has a different frequency curve than the direct sound for both speakers and for talking humans.
All in all these "comparison" videos are flawed in every way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berndalen View Post
Reality check:

Broadband diffusion vs broadband absorbtion





Are you kidding me. A few blankets and you're calling that broadband absorption? (spelled wrong at that).
Not only will it only absorb some highs/upper mids but the poor fabric will even reflect quite a bit.

I don't know if you've ever listened to music in a semi-anechoic / NE room (a REAL ONE, not one made with blankets or a few 10cm deep absorbers etc) versus a room with mostly diffusion. But I strongly suspect you have not.
I have. And it's undescribable what speakers in a semi-anechoic room sound like! The detail, tightness, dynamic range, being there inside the acoustical space of the recording are second to none. Can't really be put into words you have to hear it yourself. A diffuse room cannot come even remotely close!
But I can say one other thing. If you're into old or poorly recorded / mixed music a diffuse room can be much more pleasant to enjoy the music. Music that otherwise is torn to pieces in a semi-anechoic / NE room as you hear everything wrong with the recording.
Old 22nd February 2019
  #85
Gear Addict
 
syncussion's Avatar
 

@ Northward
I was wondering. Have you ever done a control room / mastering room with absorption on the floor as well?
I don't understand why not go all the way? It's not that impractical..

I had a semi-anechoic room myself and the floor reflection was really bothering me. I was very surprised how audible it became after all the other reflections were gone.
I'm building my new room at the moment and am including the floor (easy to do doesn't even have to be that thick absorption, making it about 40cm to get rid of the first cancellation). Also making my small desk acoustically transparent. (another thing that bugged me in my previous room)
Old 22nd February 2019
  #86
Lives for gear
 
Bjorn Omholt's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by syncussion View Post
Music that otherwise is torn to pieces in a semi-anechoic / NE room as you hear everything wrong with the recording.
And that's exactly what a control room should do IMO.
Old 22nd February 2019
  #87
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by syncussion View Post
@ Northward
I was wondering. Have you ever done a control room / mastering room with absorption on the floor as well?
I don't understand why not go all the way? It's not that impractical..

I had a semi-anechoic room myself and the floor reflection was really bothering me. I was very surprised how audible it became after all the other reflections were gone.
I'm building my new room at the moment and am including the floor (easy to do doesn't even have to be that thick absorption, making it about 40cm to get rid of the first cancellation). Also making my small desk acoustically transparent. (another thing that bugged me in my previous room)
I have controlled the floor reflections in the past, but it turned out that in the longer run engineers that asked for this mod all wanted the bare floor back. It's always the same progression: at first they are happy with that refection gone, and after a few weeks I would systematically get a call asking to reverse it to original bare floor.

I cannot clearly explain why yet, but my current take on it is that removing the floor reflection removes a specific set of data that is needed for the space to be what is called "Canonical" to humans. So while it reduces the last ER frequency issue, it somehow creates a psycho-acoustic one.

Another thing that is being discussed is why while in all cases especially when there is no furniture or acoustically transparent furniture it is systematically measurable, it is not always audible. And sometimes from one room to the other with the exact same floor build technique, fairly similar shell sizes and exact same speakers, the measured differences will be very small but one will have an audible very narrow Q dip, the other won't be audible. And so far statistically there is no trend I can identify that would point me at certain sets of parameters which may help identify why.

When I understand better what is happening, I'll be happy to share the info.
Old 22nd February 2019
  #88
Gear Addict
 
syncussion's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northward View Post
I have controlled the floor reflections in the past, but it turned out that in the longer run engineers that asked for this mod all wanted the bare floor back. It's always the same progression: at first they are happy with that refection gone, and after a few weeks I would systematically get a call asking to reverse it to original bare floor.

I cannot clearly explain why yet, but my current take on it is that removing the floor reflection removes a specific set of data that is needed for the space to be what is called "Canonical" to humans. So while it reduces the last ER frequency issue, it somehow creates a psycho-acoustic one.

Another thing that is being discussed is why while in all cases especially when there is no furniture or acoustically transparent furniture it is systematically measurable, it is not always audible. And sometimes from one room to the other with the exact same floor build technique, fairly similar shell sizes and exact same speakers, the measured differences will be very small but one will have an audible very narrow Q dip, the other won't be audible. And so far statistically there is no trend I can identify that would point me at certain sets of parameters which may help identify why.

When I understand better what is happening, I'll be happy to share the info.
Ah interesting. And thank you for your reply!
I will know soon enough if absorbing the full floor will work for me and will report back.
Btw, if the mod you've done in the past doesn't involve the full floor that may have been a less than optimal way of handling it? I've tried a few things in my previous room, smaller 20cm thick absorbers on the direct reflection path, persian carpet, and blocking the first reflection with desk. And none worked well enough, mostly coloured the reflection. Even with two 2x1m absorbers on the floor on the direct reflection point I think this may cause difraction at the border of absorber and floor? Or maybe the lower frequencies are not directional enough? I don't know but didn't fix it well enough, but this time will be doing the whole floor and walk on a mesh grille.
I was not only bothered by the comb effect btw but also how the reflection interfered a little bit with being completely in the space of a good two omni mic recording of classical music. So I'm hoping that from a psycho acoustic point it will be ideal. But maybe not reading your experience.. Thanks for preparing me. I will make it so that the floor absorption can be more easily removed in case it doesn't work out the way I hope
Old 22nd February 2019
  #89
Lives for gear
 
Bjorn Omholt's Avatar
 

In a Danish study they found the floor reflection to be the worse, followed by the ceiling reflection.

Personally I like to deal with it as it gives better clarity and insight to the recorded material.

Or use speakers that avoid it all together.
Attached Thumbnails
Greatest studio designs-cbt-pair-2-stor-.jpg  
Old 22nd February 2019
  #90
Gear Addict
 
syncussion's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bjorn Omholt View Post
In a Danish study they found the floor reflection to be the worse, followed by the ceiling reflection.

Personally I like to deal with it as it gives better clarity and insight to the recorded material.

Or use speakers that avoid it all together.
With a standard low ceiling these are surely the worst. Never get a room with a standard low ceiling

What I've thought about that may also be the case is that for a really undamped first reflection floor (and ceiling) is that it will coincide with the crossover cancellation axis for many speakers. It is the vertical angle where the speaker will sound worst maybe making the reflection even worse? (coloured by default around the mid/tweeter crossover point). Only coaxial speakers won't have this (or with tweeter and mid really close and a very low crossover point).
Ah but maybe this is getting too far off topic sorry about that.
📝 Reply
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
🖨️ Show Printable Version
✉️ Email this Page
🔍 Search thread
🎙️ View mentioned gear