The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
monitor placement
Old 19th August 2019
  #91
Gear Addict
 

@ Synthpark : EQ:ing is not an option to prevent SBIR. SBIR occurs due reflections of sound which has already left the speaker and you cannot stop the sound electronically after it has already left the speaker towards a reflective object. (I think = do not know for certain, John PM on this forum (the author of REW) wrote you can prevent / lessen it with EQ but it was not an easy procedure, so in practice not manageable.)

Regarding the Sound on Sound article; What they write as a down side with speakers close to the front wall has to do with what the end consumer might enjoy = a wide and deep soundstage. Fairly strong reflections from side walls and the wall behind the speaker will widen the sound stage outside the speakers and also depth. That might be enjoyable and nice to listen to but it is a false widening and depth. It does not exist on the recording, it is due to interaction of the room and speaker setup.
2
Share
Old 19th August 2019
  #92
nms
Lives for gear
 
nms's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthpark View Post
I asked you if you mean real flush mounting. Where is the answer?
If I was suggesting flush mounting the speakers I would have said "you should flush mount your speakers". For various reasons, I did not suggest that to anyone in this thread.
Old 19th August 2019
  #93
Lives for gear
 
Synthpark's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nms View Post
If I was suggesting flush mounting the speakers I would have said "you should flush mount your speakers". For various reasons, I did not suggest that to anyone in this thread.
Awesome! So is there any photo showing your approach?

So far I stick to this (room still under construction) which gives me the deep sound stage.
(The sub in combination removes a bass problem by the way).
Attached Thumbnails
monitor placement-img_0764.jpg   monitor placement-impulse.jpg  

Last edited by Synthpark; 19th August 2019 at 06:01 PM..
Old 19th August 2019
  #94
Lives for gear
 
Synthpark's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adhoc View Post
@ Synthpark : EQ:ing is not an option to prevent SBIR. SBIR occurs due reflections of sound which has already left the speaker and you cannot stop the sound electronically after it has already left the speaker towards a reflective object. (I think = do not know for certain, John PM on this forum (the author of REW) wrote you can prevent / lessen it with EQ but it was not an easy procedure, so in practice not manageable.)

Regarding the Sound on Sound article; What they write as a down side with speakers close to the front wall has to do with what the end consumer might enjoy = a wide and deep soundstage. Fairly strong reflections from side walls and the wall behind the speaker will widen the sound stage outside the speakers and also depth. That might be enjoyable and nice to listen to but it is a false widening and depth. It does not exist on the recording, it is due to interaction of the room and speaker setup.
Alright: And why are people using it then? You cannot reduce reverberation with EQ, a time-domain problem, but you can improve your frequency response (sound coloration) within limits using EQ (we are talking about just a few dBs here). I don't like it because I use more than one pair of speakers and do not want to switch between one EQ setting and another.

Regarding the arfticle: We are talking about studio work and the most authentic reproduction of the sound stage, so to speak the stereo information in the recording. An ideal control room has a reflexion-free-zone and should disappear, not enhance any sound stage, just disappear altogether and only provide controlled reverberation, but no early reflections. It should not interfer in any way as to narrow the depth impression. The article can be understood exactly in the direct way as it is written, hardly any room for misinterpretation .

Last edited by Synthpark; 19th August 2019 at 07:00 PM..
Old 19th August 2019
  #95
Lives for gear
 
boggy's Avatar
Hello everybody,

I already gave my best answer to OP, and I will add that not all the walls, are (stiff and heavy) WALLS for LF working region, as people mostly assume here, so there must be a caution when making conclusions about S.B.I.R. for other visitors of this forum.

Somewhere you will find brickwall, somewhere concrete wall, resonant or dampened, plastered or not, or there will be just drywall construction with some "insulation" inside, or no "insulation" at all.

These boundaries are not the same from loudspeaker/listener perspective, even with thick, full acoustic treatment... anomalies (if they exist) cannot be "hidden".

Measurements, listening and finding best loudspeaker/listener position is still applicable to many real situations, especially to these unpredictable rooms behavior, when we adapt exising room, dimensions are not ideal, boundaries materials too, ... in short, when and where "rules" doesn't apply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adhoc View Post
...EQ:ing is not an option to prevent SBIR. SBIR occurs due reflections of sound which has already left the speaker and you cannot stop the sound electronically after it has already left the speaker towards a reflective object. (I think = do not know for certain, John PM on this forum (the author of REW) wrote you can prevent / lessen it with EQ but it was not an easy procedure, so in practice not manageable.)
....
Of course, I agree. But if you "soften" reflections with carefully designed LF treatment of main boundaries (not floor), you can take back (some) control with EQ, after finding best possible position during loudspeaker/listener placement.

It is also needed to remember that EQ filter applied to loudspeaker response in carefully treated room, may be reasonable or may be not. Because that, it is needed to "measure" and discuss influence, of each filter applied, with end user/listener.
Yes It may be a long process... and if someone has listening skills and, even better, know what he want to hear... it may not be Mission:Impossible.

As @ Northward noted in his post, about 100% predictable response (in slightly different context), it is important to know, when you adapt room which you have, and not room which you do not have, you must include lesser predictability of results and be prepared for improvisation...

Then, finding loudspeaker/listener best position, really IS an improvisation, in all these non-predictable rooms.



Last edited by boggy; 20th August 2019 at 05:42 PM..
6
Share
Old 20th August 2019
  #96
nms
Lives for gear
 
nms's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthpark View Post
The article can be understood exactly in the direct way as it is written, hardly any room for misinterpretation .
And yet.. you still choose to focus on something which doesn't apply in a correctly treated room.. instead of the most important thing he said:

"The ideal speaker placement depends on the design of the speaker, the dimensions of the listening room, the efficacy of any acoustic treatment, and the location of the listening position within the room. In most cases, though, the positioning of loudspeakers inherently involves some level of compromise in the overall performance. Sometimes, placing speakers directly against the back wall does indeed provide the best balance"

All it takes is one of those factors.. the acoustic treatment of the room.. to make any argument about degraded stereo field incorrect. As I said, the correct solution to many things in the world of acoustics depends on specific circumstances. You can't just ignore the circumstances and blindly follow something you read online then expect it will apply to your room.
1
Share
Old 20th August 2019
  #97
Lives for gear
 
Synthpark's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nms View Post
And yet.. you still choose to focus on something which doesn't apply in a correctly treated room.. instead of the most important thing he said:

"The ideal speaker placement depends on the design of the speaker, the dimensions of the listening room, the efficacy of any acoustic treatment, and the location of the listening position within the room. In most cases, though, the positioning of loudspeakers inherently involves some level of compromise in the overall performance. Sometimes, placing speakers directly against the back wall does indeed provide the best balance"

All it takes is one of those factors.. the acoustic treatment of the room.. to make any argument about degraded stereo field incorrect. As I said, the correct solution to many things in the world of acoustics depends on specific circumstances. You can't just ignore the circumstances and blindly follow something you read online then expect it will apply to your room.
It seems that you don't understand the basic principle of the reflection free zone (RFZ) which is primarily responsible for the stereo image, so that you mix it all up and again and again (the infinite loop starts here!) mention "proper room treatment".

This has nothing to do with whether you get a good bass performance or not, which you might focus on (after looking in your signature). In fact you can have a very uneven bass response and still a very good stereo image and vice versa. So it is NOT ABOUT complete proper room treatment as such.

The front wall reflection, although not harming high frequencies, still influences the stereo image through the mids.

The statement that you cite relates to all factors of speaker performance, which would be frequency response in the first place here (lows, mids, heights). Varying the position of the speaker to get the best frequency response and best subjective sound impression is a well known practise.

At the end of the article he notices the depth issue, all quite clear and very easy to understand. He makes an isolated statement for itself which he seem to believe does apply.

And this applies only if front wall is untreated behind the speakers. If you have a better solution with an in-between absorber, please show it, although I not quite sure how this would work.

Of course, getting RFZ is in general much easier than getting the bass right.

Last edited by Synthpark; 20th August 2019 at 06:01 AM..
Old 20th August 2019
  #98
nms
Lives for gear
 
nms's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthpark View Post
It seems that you don't understand the basic principle of the reflection free zone (RFZ) which is primarily responsible for the stereo image, so that you mix it all up and again and again (the infinite loop starts here!) mention "proper room treatment".
I don't know who you are even talking to right now, as nothing you just said addresses any of my statements, least of all the one you quoted.

Quote:
In fact you can have a very uneven bass response and still a very good stereo image and vice versa. The wall reflection, although not harming high frequencies, still influence the stereo image.
Is there a reason you're stating something obvious that no one is disagreeing with? Not sure why you're mentioning this.

Quote:
At the end of the article he notices the depth issue, all quite clear and very easy to understand. He makes an isolated statement for itself which he seem to believe does apply.
Now's probably a good time to remind you that he's a magazine writer, not a studio designer. Anyways, his statement:

"In general, the further the speaker is from the back wall, the greater the impression of soundstage depth becomes"

Yes, he believes "in general". How many of his readers are in poorly or entirely untreated rooms? Most of them. As I said before, the design of the room and its acoustic treatment can make that statement completely invalid. And if we're talking about an artificially created soundstage which isn't in the recording and is caused by the room, that's the last thing we want in a studio environment.

In any room I design, my clients expect an excellent LF response *in addition to* excellent stereo imaging. If you can't produce both then you don't know what you're doing.

Stop going in circles. You're complicating & confusing a simple issue. Placing speakers closest to the massive boundary will minimize LF phase issues, and absorption on the wall is able to solve ANY negative influence to the upper frequencies and stereo image.
1
Share
Old 20th August 2019
  #99
Lives for gear
 
Synthpark's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nms View Post
I don't know who you are even talking to right now, as nothing you just said addresses any of my statements, least of all the one you quoted.
Quote:
Yes, he believes "in general". How many of his readers are in poorly or entirely untreated rooms? Most of them. As I said before, the design of the room and its acoustic treatment can make that statement completely invalid. And if we're talking about an artificially created soundstage which isn't in the recording and is caused by the room, that's the last thing we want in a studio environment.

In any room I design, my clients expect an excellent LF response *in addition to* excellent stereo imaging. If you can't produce both then you don't know what you're doing.
haha, first deny any context and then to repeat exactly the same again referring to some general "acoustic treatment". You just blurr and mystify the subject.

I make it easier for you: Your *treated* room (and mine) will suffer in the same way from front wall coloration in the mids as any untreated room, if this is an issue for the selected type of speakers. This is a principle in physics: you have a source of a problem, and if all other factors are solved, this source remains to be a problem. If this isn't clear to you then I dont know how you want to treat any room at all.
Old 20th August 2019
  #100
nms
Lives for gear
 
nms's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthpark View Post
haha, first deny any context and then to repeat exactly the same again referring to some general "acoustic treatment". You just blurr and mystify the subject.
Do you have an RFZ that you've created without using acoustic treatment? No? Great.. moving on.

Quote:
I make it easier for you: Your *treated* room (and mine) will suffer in the same way from front wall coloration in the mids as any untreated room, if this is an issue for the selected type of speakers.
lol.. what? If the front wall is absorbent at the frequencies in question, then the coloration does not exist. That's the point! You'll only continue to confuse yourself if you ignore the relevant details here.

Quote:
This is a principle in physics: you have a source of a problem, and if all other factors are solved, this source remains to be a problem.
Ok we're back on the obvious I see..

In this case our problem is the interference from the front wall, so we use broadband absorption to deal with it. And we place the speakers close to the wall in order to avoid creating more difficult problems in the range of frequencies where our porous absorption is least effective.

There we go.. problems all solved!

Should be a pretty straightforward concept here.. but I have a feeling you've got just the rebuttal in store
1
Share
Old 20th August 2019
  #101
Lives for gear
 
Synthpark's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nms View Post
In this case our problem is the interference from the front wall, so we use broadband absorption to deal with it. And we place the speakers close to the wall in order to avoid creating more difficult problems in the range of frequencies where our porous absorption is least effective.
Then show me a photo (asked for the third time).

I showed you mine. I place an absorber behind the speakers (to absorb 200Hz-800Hz), not in between the speakers, although it extends to the area in the middle also due to some treatment of 150-250 Hz. The speakers are not too far from the wall, but still not as near as suggested (taking into account the windows to deal with).

Go ahead and finally show what you mean instead of constantly blurring everything and try to make the other look like an idiot.
Old 20th August 2019
  #102
nms
Lives for gear
 
nms's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthpark View Post
Then show me a photo (asked for the third time).
I thought "porous absorption on the wall between the speakers" is pretty self explanatory. My best rooms are all flush mounted, but here's a room I designed for a client in Australia which uses the approach I suggested to produce great results within the budget and circumstances. This is a freestanding structure within the room, comprised of modules which are easily separated to move with the client when needed. Note that the speakers weren't in their final intended position in this photo. They should be a couple inches closer to the center panel. Best to leave as little space possible between speaker and center panel.

Anyway, I appreciate your enthusiasm on the subject and I know it's easy to be convinced of something when you've had a personal experience which leads you to that belief. Often the most accurate responses to so many questions in acoustics really begins with "it depends..". What's correct in one circumstance is often wrong in another. It's not easy for people to navigate.

Cheers

<edit: photo removed>

Last edited by nms; 28th August 2019 at 10:30 AM..
2
Share
Old 20th August 2019
  #103
Lives for gear
 
Synthpark's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nms View Post
I thought "porous absorption on the wall between the speakers" is pretty self explanatory. Normally I intentionally try to keep some distance between my work in the real world, and the circus that is gearslutz. I'll make an exception here this time. My best rooms are all flush mounted, but here's a room I designed for a client in Sydney Australia which uses the approach I suggested to produce great results within the budget and circumstances. This is a freestanding structure within the room, comprised of modules which are easily separated to move with the client when needed. Note that the speakers weren't in their final intended position in this photo. They should be a couple inches closer to the center panel. Best to leave as little space possible between speaker and center panel.
Ok, thanks! I cannot judge how much it works as to absorb the mid range (with speakers more to the center) but if you believe it or say so, let it be. Nice looks!

Cheers
Old 20th August 2019
  #104
nms
Lives for gear
 
nms's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthpark View Post
Ok, thanks! I cannot judge how much it works as to absorb the mid range (with speakers more to the center) but if you believe it or say so, let it be. Nice looks!
Client's response was "I can't believe my ears. This studio sounds incredible! I feel like I can even see the music it is so crisp."

The thicker you go with that center panel, the more the front wall disappears. Even 6" of porous absorption thickness does an excellent job of dealing with the frequency range you're concerned most with though.
2
Share
Old 24th August 2019
  #105
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
It seems that you don't understand the basic principle of the reflection free zone (RFZ) which is primarily responsible for the stereo image, so that you mix it all up and again and again (the infinite loop starts here!) mention "proper room treatment".
Then I wonder how people managed to get stereo images in rooms that are not designed as RFZ? If the RFZ is what creates the stereo image, then how do those people get stereo images when there is no RFZ?

And I'm having a good laugh at this comment, telling nms that he "doesn't understand the basic principles"... Accusing nms, of all people!

For the record, it is entirely possible to get a good stereo image without having an RFZ. I thought it was important to correct that error.

- Stuart -
1
Share
Old 24th August 2019
  #106
Lives for gear
 
Synthpark's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundman2020 View Post
Then I wonder how people managed to get stereo images in rooms that are not designed as RFZ? If the RFZ is what creates the stereo image, then how do those people get stereo images when there is no RFZ?

- Stuart -
Hey Stuart, I thought you understand that the stereo image is a product of the direct sound of the speakers in their equilateral triangle that the listener can enjoy. RFZ does not "create" anything.

Now I understand why you do not appreciate this 60 degree angled triangle. The RFZ design ensures that the room will not interfere with the direct sound at listening position for mid range and high frequencies.

Show me design concepts where this is not done.

There are only two ways to do it: absorption or redirection of reflections.

So room-in-room concepts are following redirection, no contradiction to the basic idea to avoid first and maybe second order reflections to the listening position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundman2020 View Post
For the record, it is entirely possible to get a good stereo image without having an RFZ. I thought it was important to correct that error.

- Stuart -
For the record: I found it important this morning to correct the flaw in your reasoning.

Last edited by Synthpark; 24th August 2019 at 07:31 AM..
Old 24th August 2019
  #107
Lives for gear
Stuart, the only pro having test the Harmfulness of the early reflexions is Toole in abx and there are no issues and better with.
Do you know Moulton design?

Earl Geddes write the VER very early reflexions are usefull in the frequency range 300-3000 Hz for the stereo picture.

The EBU doc recommend - 10 dB between 1kHz and 8kHz.
Old 24th August 2019
  #108
nms
Lives for gear
 
nms's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundman2020 View Post
I'm having a good laugh at this comment, telling nms that he "doesn't understand the basic principles"... Accusing nms, of all people! :lol
A pretty ridiculous remark for sure. In the end it seems we understood each other better though.

Not easy at times, but debates are usually more productive when we place more emphasis on trying to understand each other and can keep ego, personal remarks, and emotion out of the discussion. But... as we know, that's not really the way of the internet
1
Share
Old 24th August 2019
  #109
Gear Addict
 

The name of Toole’s book is ”Sound Reproduction Loudspeakers and Rooms”. It doesn’t say ”Control Rooms”. The majority of shown rooms in the book are domestic rooms with HiFi speakers and comments are often about how to get enjoyable sound in domestic rooms.

That may coincide with audible (more) accourate sound reproduction of the recording in many cases. But, (more) enjoyable reproduced sound is not always identical with most accourate sound reproduction of the recording. Early reflections from room surfaces may widen and / or deepen the sound stage of what has actually been recorded. = Can be nice for recreational listening, -as you appreciate the effect from your additional (control) room reflections better than the ”straight more dry sound” of the recording iself from the recording room. For correct evaluation and manipulation of the recording, additional reflections within the control room can be seen as detrimenetal for that work though.
3
Share
Old 24th August 2019
  #110
Lives for gear
 
Synthpark's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nms View Post
A pretty ridiculous remark for sure. In the end it seems we understood each other better though.

Not easy at times, but debates are usually more productive when we place more emphasis on trying to understand each other and can keep ego, personal remarks, and emotion out of the discussion. But... as we know, that's not really the way of the internet
Well, if every third sentence sounds like

Quote:
Originally Posted by nms View Post
You'll only continue to confuse yourself if you ignore the relevant details here.
what can you expect?
Old 24th August 2019
  #111
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adhoc View Post
The name of Toole’s book is ”Sound Reproduction Loudspeakers and Rooms”. It doesn’t say ”Control Rooms”. The majority of shown rooms in the book are domestic rooms with HiFi speakers and comments are often about how to get enjoyable sound in domestic rooms.

That may coincide with audible (more) accourate sound reproduction of the recording in many cases. But, (more) enjoyable reproduced sound is not always identical with most accourate sound reproduction of the recording. Early reflections from room surfaces may widen and / or deepen the sound stage of what has actually been recorded. = Can be nice for recreational listening, -as you appreciate the effect from your additional (control) room reflections better than the ”straight more dry sound” of the recording iself from the recording room. For correct evaluation and manipulation of the recording, additional reflections within the control room can be seen as detrimenetal for that work though.
Toole use the harman test rooms also. For his writes on the early reflections, he uses the works make by an other guy in an acoustic controlled if I remember well (i could be wrong)

Control room following what design? Between the LEDE/RFZ, the RFZ only or the NE as the Hidley design or the ambechoic or nothing (personal design) or following the ebu 3276, there are great differences.

And as i wrote, the world of the ME is not monolithic.
Old 24th August 2019
  #112
Lives for gear
 
Synthpark's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinococcus View Post
Toole use the harman test rooms also. For his writes on the early reflections, he uses the works make by an other guy in an acoustic controlled if I remember well (i could be wrong)

Control room following what design? Between the LEDE/RFZ, the RFZ only or the NE as the Hidley design or the ambechoic or nothing (personal design) or following the ebu 3276, there are great differences.

And as i wrote, the world of the ME is not monolithic.
That sounds like name dropping.

Maybe you could highlight, how each method deals with early reflecions.
Old 24th August 2019
  #113
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dinococcus View Post
Toole use the harman test rooms also. For his writes on the early reflections, he uses the works make by an other guy in an acoustic controlled if I remember well (i could be wrong)

Control room following what design? Between the LEDE/RFZ, the RFZ only or the NE as the Hidley design or the ambechoic or nothing (personal design) or following the ebu 3276, there are great differences.

And as i wrote, the world of the ME is not monolithic.
Whatever design name the control room carries, what they all have in common is a goal to take down early reflections to inaudible levels. (At least I cannot recall any design which promotes audible early reflections for evaluation of a recording.)

Tool's book contains tons of references to other peoples findings. Those findings are explained in plain easy to understand language leaving out complex math which could scare away the reader. Its content is aimed more at recreational stereo / mutichannel listening in domestic rooms plus choice of speakers for those. In comparison there is very little about control rooms and where that is mentioned it is that people working in them prefer a lower amount of early reflections at work, compared to the listering "ordinary man", while at home they may go along with louder reflections.
1
Share
Old 24th August 2019
  #114
Lives for gear
 
boggy's Avatar
Hello everybody,

I have just a couple observations.

There is a third method (not just redirection or absorption) to deal with room reflections: a diffusion/absorption hybrid.

More about that is described here:
https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/co...ns/?elib=15717

https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/co...ns/?elib=18225

Diffuser/absorber hybrid is also described in:
Acoustic Absorbers and Diffusers: Theory, Design and Application 3rd Edition book written by Trevor Cox and Peter D’Antonio



For the stereo image, every single detail in actual loudspeaker design is extremely important, not just room.

E.g. we tried different speakers, at the same (best) position, in the same room designed following MyRoom Acoustic Design Principle, and stereo image differences between the different brand of speakers were between "night and day".

I wish that everything is easy, but unfortunately, it is not... from my experience.


Old 24th August 2019
  #115
Lives for gear
 
Synthpark's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by boggy View Post
Hello everybody,

I have just a couple observations.

There is a third method (not just redirection or absorption) to deal with room reflections: a diffusion/absorption hybrid.
You are absolutely right.
How could I forget about it, in fact, about my own rear wall
100% conform with LEDE. I was thinking more about the front, there it is somewhat less common to use diffusors I would say (except sometimes on the front between speakers).
cheers

Last edited by Synthpark; 24th August 2019 at 01:11 PM..
Old 24th August 2019
  #116
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adhoc View Post
Whatever design name the control room carries, what they all have in common is a goal to take down early reflections to inaudible levels. (At least I cannot recall any design which promotes audible early reflections for evaluation of a recording.)
http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/maki...sound_good/P2/

The moulton design: last paragraph.
Old 24th August 2019
  #117
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by boggy View Post
Hello everybody,


For the stereo image, every single detail in actual loudspeaker design is extremely important, not just room.


Hello,

The directivity off axis could explain the difference?
Old 24th August 2019
  #118
Lives for gear
 
boggy's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinococcus View Post
Hello,

The directivity off axis could explain the difference?
It is not that simple... Driver choice also play a role, cabinet diffraction, amplifier... etc. My loudspeaker designs looks like "conventional"... nothing special to see on them.

From my deduction, choosing some of many measurable characteristics, and give them "most important role", make people's discussion easier about topic... but doesn't explain everything what actually happening.

Listening and mixing session in acoustically treated room with loudspeakers is best way to make conclusions, if we talk about professional production application of acoustically treated control rooms and loudspeakers. Mix translation and satisfaction of your customers and your own, is a best way to measure influence of acoustical design of room and monitoring loudspeakers. This system need to motivate you to learn more, and be better. And that is not just about couple of measured characteristics, that is too easy. It is more about honest communication between acoustic designer and mixing engineer/producer, and their both skill level, then we can have results. Of course, if he is the same person (acoustic designer and mixing engineer)... principle is the same.

I professionally respect frequency response, after CR treatment is finished, just for nulls/dips we have to solve in rooms, because what you cannot hear, you cannot control.




Last edited by boggy; 24th August 2019 at 02:43 PM..
3
Share
Old 24th August 2019
  #119
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adhoc View Post
The name of Toole’s book is ”Sound Reproduction Loudspeakers and Rooms”. It doesn’t say ”Control Rooms”. The majority of shown rooms in the book are domestic rooms with HiFi speakers and comments are often about how to get enjoyable sound in domestic rooms.

That may coincide with audible (more) accourate sound reproduction of the recording in many cases. But, (more) enjoyable reproduced sound is not always identical with most accourate sound reproduction of the recording. Early reflections from room surfaces may widen and / or deepen the sound stage of what has actually been recorded. = Can be nice for recreational listening, -as you appreciate the effect from your additional (control) room reflections better than the ”straight more dry sound” of the recording iself from the recording room. For correct evaluation and manipulation of the recording, additional reflections within the control room can be seen as detrimenetal for that work though.
+1!

Exactly. That's what I thought I had said in my post, that other people wanted to take issue with. I guess I didn't express it clearly enough, though. Early reflections are not desirable in a control room, because they color the sound, in the sense of falsely spreading the sound-stage, but they can be good in rooms such as home theaters, audiophile rooms and other listening rooms, precisely because the improve the sensation of "envelopment", which is great for, as you say "recreational listening". But not for control rooms. After all, if early reflections were not desirable anywhere, as some people seem to think, then concert halls and other performance spaces would sound pretty bad. Producing a large amount of early reflections is a major part of concert hall design. But not control room design. It's two different concepts: the control room is supposed to be flat, neutral, uncolored, and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That would sound lousy for recreational listening, but is necessary for control rooms.

That's the point I tried to make before, but it seems to have been misunderstood.


- Stuart -
Old 24th August 2019
  #120
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adhoc View Post
Tool's book contains tons of references to other peoples findings. Those findings are explained in plain easy to understand language leaving out complex math which could scare away the reader. Its content is aimed more at recreational stereo / mutichannel listening in domestic rooms plus choice of speakers for those. In comparison there is very little about control rooms and where that is mentioned it is that people working in them prefer a lower amount of early reflections at work, compared to the listering "ordinary man", while at home they may go along with louder reflections.
+1. In fact, out of nearly 500 pages in his book, he only devotes 8 pages specifically to control rooms (although he does mention them in several other places). His book is not about control rooms: it is mainly about speakers, the ways they can be measured, and what that means in real-world terms, outside of the anechoic test chamber. They way the behave in control rooms is only a very small part of the overall coverage of his book.

- Stuart -
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump