The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
SMT (Svanå) does it again...... Dynamics Plugins
Old 15th July 2014
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Bjorn Omholt's Avatar
 

SMT (Svanå) does it again......

SMT never seems to stop surprising.
Excellent cup poly diffusors? Looking forward to see measurements of these!!


And if these in the ceiling are also products from SMT (which might be wrong); are they inverted polys? I would guess we're seeing the backside of the former "cups" but why placed like this?



The latter picture is from the Munich show this year. Several has commented it as one of the worse room and setup at that show. Which is quite impressive when the room is filled with treatment and most other rooms more or less have no treatment.
Attached Thumbnails
SMT (Svanå) does it again......-las-vegas.jpg   SMT (Svanå) does it again......-engelholm-2.jpg  
Old 15th July 2014
  #2
Lives for gear
 
jim1961's Avatar
 

Always been curious to how this approach sounds. Unfortunately, pics bring me no closer :(
Old 15th July 2014
  #3
Lives for gear
 

ISD gap is very small, but diffused.
Old 15th July 2014
  #4
Lives for gear
 
jim1961's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by OpusOfTrolls View Post
ISD gap is very small, but diffused.
About the direct opposite of what I have done (long 25ms, deep (-30db) ISD gap, with specular reflections (2 Haas kickers) being mostly responsible for ambiance/liveliness recovery with just a tad of diffusion (termination tail) thrown in.

I think what I have sounds terrific. Svanå would probably claim the same. Can diametrically opposing approaches both yield great sound? Are acoustics this flexible? It seems so.

Oddly, an untreated room stands somewhere right between me and Svanå (in terms of ETC) and that is well known to have problems. Interesting.
Old 15th July 2014
  #5
Gear Guru
 
Glenn Kuras's Avatar
Quote:
I would guess we're seeing the backside of the former "cups" but why placed like this?
That has to be wrong.. That would be the worst shape you could have.

Old 15th July 2014
  #6
Lives for gear
 

That's totally wrong, they are circular, not parabolic, and they are deeper. Much different.
Old 16th July 2014
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Bjorn Omholt's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jim1961 View Post
Always been curious to how this approach sounds. Unfortunately, pics bring me no closer :(
It sounds spacious but it's a complete mess. Most likely the "diffusors" are not diffusing but simply scatters the sound. And with a mixture of different kinds and no regard to a proper sequence what so ever, there will be a lot of lobing. Perhaps that's why they use so much, to try to cover up the lobing and poor diffuse field. Sort of like Boose response. Sound everywhere and poor sound everywhere.

Treating early reflections with diffusion and especially poor ones makes accuracy suffer. Clarity, intelligibillity, localization, pin-pointing, tonality; all of that goes out the window. Instead you get spaciousness but with loads of errors. And with short distance to diffusors the energy isn't properly diffused and you hear discrete reflections.

Not to mention that this amount of use of diffusion, especially since many of the diffusors the company sells are made of cardboard, makes the room quite dead. Which is an irony considering Matts/Svanå says LEDE gives a dead environment, but it doesn't seem like he any clue what LEDE really is. You know, it isn't something you can google.

But hey, it looks cool, so the "high end" community buys it! Heck, they have even found shallow diffusors with no diffractals that defeats the law of physics and are braodband. Wow!
Old 16th July 2014
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Bjorn Omholt's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jim1961 View Post
Can diametrically opposing approaches both yield great sound? Are acoustics this flexible? It seems so.
Physics and psycoacoustics also counts. You can't beat that.

Most likely though it's better the no treatment in most cases. At least the flutter-echo of the room is treated and sound is scattered more around. And Helmholtz resonators work.
But no way this can compete with proper treatment and following psycoacoustic principles.
Old 16th July 2014
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Bjorn Omholt's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Kuras View Post
That has to be wrong.. That would be the worst shape you could have.

Who cares when the diffuse field is already a complete mess! Throwing in a bit more will not make much of a difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OpusOfTrolls View Post
That's totally wrong, they are circular, not parabolic, and they are deeper. Much different.
Lol. Yeah, a great improvement!
Old 16th July 2014
  #10
Lives for gear
 
jim1961's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwo View Post
It sounds spacious but it's a complete mess. Most likely the "diffusors" are not diffusing but simply scatters the sound. And with a mixture of different kinds and no regard to a proper sequence what so ever, there will be a lot of lobing. Perhaps that's why they use so much, to try to cover up the lobing and poor diffuse field. Sort of like Boose response. Sound everywhere and poor sound everywhere.

Treating early reflections with diffusion and especially poor ones makes accuracy suffer. Clarity, intelligibillity, localization, pin-pointing, tonality; all of that goes out the window. Instead you get spaciousness but with loads of errors. And with short distance to diffusors the energy isn't properly diffused and you hear discrete reflections.

Not to mention that this amount of use of diffusion, especially since many of the diffusors the company sells are made of cardboard, makes the room quite dead. Which is an irony considering Matts/Svanå says LEDE gives a dead environment, but it doesn't seem like he any clue what LEDE really is. You know, it isn't something you can google.

But hey, it looks cool, so the "high end" community buys it! Heck, they have even found shallow diffusors with no diffractals that defeats the law of physics and are braodband. Wow!
I take it your not a fan

Are your perceptions based in principle or actual listening?
Old 16th July 2014
  #11
Lives for gear
 
Rod Gervais's Avatar
 

Does anyone have a link to these products on their website - I can't seem to find them there......

Rod
Old 16th July 2014
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Bjorn Omholt's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jim1961 View Post
I take it your not a fan

Are your perceptions based in principle or actual listening?
Both. If you have some extra diffusors, you can try it out yourself to some degree. But it's obviously worse with lower quality products and a mix of different kinds. There's a good reason why RPG has developed Modffusors and Modffractals.

Rod:
They aren't one the website yet. However, there's a link to John Atkinson's comment under news (nyheter).
Nyheter
Old 16th July 2014
  #13
Lives for gear
 
John White's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwo View Post
It sounds spacious but it's a complete mess. Most likely the "diffusors" are not diffusing but simply scatters the sound. And with a mixture of different kinds and no regard to a proper sequence what so ever, there will be a lot of lobing. Perhaps that's why they use so much, to try to cover up the lobing and poor diffuse field...Sound everywhere and poor sound everywhere.

Treating early reflections with diffusion and especially poor ones makes accuracy suffer. Clarity, intelligibillity, localization, pin-pointing, tonality; all of that goes out the window. Instead you get spaciousness but with loads of errors...
Very well stated overall bwo. It may be worth noting that this modality is geared to listening for enjoyment verse stressing the need for accuracy. We have seen Boggy and George Massenburg successfully use diffusers within early reflection times, yet the important difference is in respect to gain. I believe Blackbird is -30dB (?) down and Boggy's is at least 20 from what I remember and these were originally used to combat the unique challenges to surround sound production. Higher levels which we probably hear in this particular SMT set up could very well sound like "a complete mess".

For listening enjoyment purposes, extraneous or indiscriminate sounds may indeed contribute to a unique or welcomed sense of stereophony. Some examples may be a new sense of spaciousness brought to lifeless recordings or any enhanced sense of ambiance and envelopment.

It should be obvious why these properties may be welcome and encouraged by hifi users. However, the important thing here and especially within the context of this forum, is that any change to the original recording, even if it sounds "better", may be counter indicative to accuracy. Furthermore, as I've written in an article recently, though modalities which purposefully affect the nature of recording may seem to enhance the listening experience at times, "we may never fully appreciate some recordings if we can’t accurately hear ‘into the mix’. Many elaborate studio projects often fall upon deaf ears since it’s not common practice to listen in an environment designed specifically towards accurate audio reproduction." Again, these designs may suit many listeners, but don't belong in production studios.
Old 16th July 2014
  #14
Lives for gear
 
jim1961's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwo View Post
Both. If you have some extra diffusors, you can try it out yourself to some degree. But it's obviously worse with lower quality products and a mix of different kinds. There's a good reason why RPG has developed Modffusors and Modffractals.

Rod:
They aren't one the website yet. However, there's a link to John Atkinson's comment under news (nyheter).
Nyheter
Quote:
Originally Posted by John White View Post
Very well stated overall bwo. It may be worth noting that this modality is geared to listening for enjoyment verse stressing the need for accuracy. We have seen Boggy and George Massenburg successfully use diffusers within early reflection times, yet the important difference is in respect to gain. I believe Blackbird is -30dB (?) down and Boggy's is at least 20 from what I remember and these were originally used to combat the unique challenges to surround sound production. Higher levels which we probably hear in this particular SMT set up could very well sound like "a complete mess".

For listening enjoyment purposes, extraneous or indiscriminate sounds may indeed contribute to a unique or welcomed sense of stereophony. Some examples may be a new sense of spaciousness brought to lifeless recordings or any enhanced sense of ambiance and envelopment.

It should be obvious why these properties may be welcome and encouraged by hifi users. However, the important thing here and especially within the context of this forum, is that any change to the original recording, even if it sounds "better", may be counter indicative to accuracy. Furthermore, as I've written in an article recently, though modalities which purposefully affect the nature of recording may seem to enhance the listening experience at times, "we may never fully appreciate some recordings if we can’t accurately hear ‘into the mix’. Many elaborate studio projects often fall upon deaf ears since it’s not common practice to listen in an environment designed specifically towards accurate audio reproduction." Again, these designs may suit many listeners, but don't belong in production studios.
I have seen Svanå ETC's. I like whats happening after 20-25ms. But the point both of you are making is addressed to the first 20ms I assume.

Speaking to a listening environment only, biases and preferences differ widely. I prefer that I am in the 5th row middle or so, where each auditory source has a specific position. A place on the sound stage. But I do like liveliness and ambiance. A dry dead sound isn't my cup of tea either.

In my take on Svanå's approach, liveliness and ambiance are brought to the forefront and made the main objective, even at the expense of well defined placement on the stage. The dry dead approach yields great stage placement and location, at the expense of liveliness and ambiance.

I would say that the dry dead approach can sound very nice. Many times, there is enough spaciousness and ambiance inherent in the recording to give the listening experience life, despite being in a dead room. Live recordings are especially adept in this regard in dead rooms. But in a two channel setup, this all comes from the front, and so any sense of envelopment is impossible.
Old 16th July 2014
  #15
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jim1961 View Post
About the direct opposite of what I have done (long 25ms, deep (-30db) ISD gap, with specular reflections (2 Haas kickers) being mostly responsible for ambiance/liveliness recovery with just a tad of diffusion (termination tail) thrown in.

I think what I have sounds terrific. Svanå would probably claim the same. Can diametrically opposing approaches both yield great sound? Are acoustics this flexible? It seems so.

Oddly, an untreated room stands somewhere right between me and Svanå (in terms of ETC) and that is well known to have problems. Interesting.
Think about a live recording that was done in a large room, with mics picking up direct sound and reverberant sound with a +20ms ISD gap. Logically, having a small but diffused termination might somehow augment the soundstage. But, BWO's observations are also logically valid.
Old 16th July 2014
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Bjorn Omholt's Avatar
 

There's nothing wrong with choosing spacious and ambiant sound over better imaging and accuracy in a playbakc system for pleasant listening. But you still need a minimum distance to diffusors to avoid hearing discrete reflections, and you also still need proper designed diffusors (and placed in a certain sequence when many are used) for a good result. That's the caveat with SMT more then anything.

With SMT diffusors we have no measurements and statements of how they are made makes no sense. Either Matt is a genius and has done something no other acousticians understand or he's way off. I wouldn't hold my breath for the first to be true. When we ask for measurements of the diffusors and get RTx graphs from small rooms he has treated (where no true reverberation field exists by the way!), I'm not really sure what to believe....
Old 16th July 2014
  #17
Here for the gear
 

I am very happy of my SMT diffusors. The work very fine.
Before them I have diffusors from Hofa. Its from Germany. But SMT is the best.

I got 8 V.wings
16 Diy wings.
2 of Varitune V-4
2 of Varitune V-6
I got amasing sound in my listen room.
I have try to take diffusors out off the room and after a while, take them back again. Its amasing.

I have very dynamic sound.
Old 17th July 2014
  #18
Here for the gear
 

I began by listen to 2 V-wings behind the loudspeaker, and this 2 V-winger get the music very more dynamic.
I like the things the are doing for the music. So I buy some more SMT V-wings and Diy wings; and tray them more places in the room. The music get better and better.
When you take the Wings away, the music loose the detail, loose focus in the music.
When you put the diffusors back again, the sound is more logical. Its open up.
V-wings is the best. But the Diy - wings are good to. It is lot more cheep. I have 16 of them at is fine.
I got lot of absorbering with some Rockfon Sonar, under the roof. Its fine, but today I take some of them down from the roof, because I wonder the Diy wings will be better there. Wings absorbing only a little. My room is a litle for much absorbering. That ground to i buyer diffusors. To get the music free.
V-wings and Diy-wings give you a more dynamic sound. Dynamic is so important for the music.
Hofa take away the dynamic, because to absorb to much. But its fine too. I have try it. Hofa is D2.
I have do so measurement an the seems the same about V-wings and Diy-wings.
When you put wings to left for you, in front of the left wall, you not get at black wall. You get a more natural. They came sound from the wall, but it seems like you put the wall lot of meters behind. Like the same som in concerthall, where their are no wall. Their are open with lots and distance.
Old 17th July 2014
  #19
Gear Guru
Translation

Sven, what do you mean by 'dynamic".
Generally, dynamic in music means a large difference between soft and loud. e.g. Classical music. Rock, Pop etc. is compressed, so small dynamic, little difference between soft and loud.
All acoustic treatment is linear, it does not work differently soft or loud. So it has no effect on 'dynamics'.
DD
Old 17th July 2014
  #20
Here for the gear
 

I know, what dynamic is. Its the difference between soft and loud sound. And I know, what its sound, when the music have very lite dynamic. Its terrible. I can´t take it. I have very good loudspeaker, amplifer and cable.
I was aback over what I listing. I have read very about by material for absorbing behind the loudspeakers.
I have try to test Hofa diffuser behind the loudspeakers with bad result. Other places was Hofa (D2) good. I have look at pictures and set SMT has wings there. I tried with Wings there. V-wings
I was particularly amazed over the music was more dynamic. I put them others places for still better result. Then I bought some more V-wings.
Today I have diy wings behind the loudspeaker. Its cheaper. And good too.

Jeg think about it, and that is because they have it directly sound, they are first inside 20 ms (Haas). When to absorb in first refleksion point, we take energy out.
With SMT wings we diffused the sound and is being created broadband copy off the direct sound which work together with the direct sound from the loudspeakers.
When I bruges Wings, it will be more easy to hear, what the are singing on the record. You get better ears.
It is not so, that the Wings put somting to the music. If you have a dry take, it will still be dry.
Wings are doing the, that to record interplanetary space be, came forward. A record from a church is from a church and a record from a hall is from a hall.
Old 17th July 2014
  #21
Gear Guru
 
Glenn Kuras's Avatar
Quote:
Jeg think about it, and that is because they have it directly sound, they are first inside 20 ms (Haas). When to absorb in first refleksion point, we take energy out.
With SMT wings we diffused the sound and is being created broadband copy off the direct sound which work together with the direct sound from the loudspeakers.
Are you saying it makes the reflective sound speed up and puts it in time with the direct sound?
Old 17th July 2014
  #22
Gear Guru
Like

Sven, I have no issue with you liking a product. But this is an Acoustics forum. What you are saying is acoustically speaking, nonsense. i.e. It contains no sense.
Acoustic treatment cannot increase the dynamic range.
Also Diffusors behind speakers is another dubious venture.
DD
Old 17th July 2014
  #23
Lives for gear
 
jim1961's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
Sven, I have no issue with you liking a product. But this is an Acoustics forum. What you are saying is acoustically speaking, nonsense. i.e. It contains no sense.
Acoustic treatment cannot increase the dynamic range.
Also Diffusors behind speakers is another dubious venture.
DD
Actually it can in a way given absorption can lower the noise floor in the room
Old 18th July 2014
  #24
Lives for gear
 
latestflavor's Avatar
 

i'll be honest it looks like several nested kitchen baking bowl sets attached to the ceiling.

that kind of creativity can only come from hooking up with sweet mary jane....
Old 18th July 2014
  #25
Old 18th July 2014
  #26
Here for the gear
 

Thanks for good welcome... It is my third insert.
I have sometime be inside to read on Gearslutz. One can always to grow.
Now you are certainly acoustic, and I am not, but it have my very interest, and so I have considered the things a lot of year. These diffusor from SMT has beeb debate from time to time. I got it and it is so good, so I think that others should hear, that I am glad for them.
I has read about them for some years, at I took the risk to buy diffusors from SMT. I buy 2 SMT V-wings and 10 Diy-wings first. I buy more later. You should do same, istead ask for measurement. Don´t speak so much, but tray it.
I could here it at immediately, at the sound was better. More natural. More dynamic.
The directly sound from a loudspeaker to the listner is the direct sound, but we hear also a little of the room. I think it is about 6 ms, but you must now precisely how much.

A good thing by SMT V-wings are moving the sound about near 3 feed. (max. 80 cm.)

Floyd has written greatly about, how importen this 1. reflection are.

Linkwitz in his paper AES.
The requirement for full spectral content of the
reflections rules out the use of frequency dependent
absorbers on the room surfaces. The various
commercially available foam or fiberglass panels
absorb predominantly higher frequencies only and
would color the room reflected sound dynamically to
where it no longer can be cognitively separated from
the direct sound.
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/AES123-final2.pdf


A novel approach to controlling early reflections is not to try to suppress or redirect them, but instead diffuse them. This results in a reduced reflection level but does not absorb them.
In general most surfaces absorb some of the sound energy and so the reflection is weakened by the reflection. Therefore the level of direct reflections will be less than that which would be predicted by the inverse square law, due to surface absorption.
Certainly less sound, there came from the roof and wall, certainly the more lower the sound it is. I think it is necessary to have this reflects, and not to toss them out. When you converter them so you hear them with out peaks, it is good.
Old 18th July 2014
  #27
Lives for gear
 
jim1961's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sven Palvig View Post
Thanks for good welcome... It is my third insert.
I have sometime be inside to read on RS. One can always to grow.
Now you are certainly acoustic, and I am not, but it have my very interest, and so I have considered the things a lot of year. These diffusor from SMT has beeb debate from time to time. I got it and it is so good, so I think that others should hear, that I am glad for them.
I has read about them for some years, at I took the risk to buy diffusors from SMT. I buy 2 SMT V-wings and 10 Diy-wings first. I buy more later. You should do same, istead ask for measurement. Don´t speak so much, but tray it.
I could here it at immediately, at the sound was better. More natural. More dynamic.
The directly sound from a loudspeaker to the listner is the direct sound, but we hear also a little of the room. I think it is about 6 ms, but you must now precisely how much.

Floyd has written greatly about, how importen this 1. reflection are.

Linkwitz in his paper AES.
The requirement for full spectral content of the
reflections rules out the use of frequency dependent
absorbers on the room surfaces. The various
commercially available foam or fiberglass panels
absorb predominantly higher frequencies only and
would color the room reflected sound dynamically to
where it no longer can be cognitively separated from
the direct sound.
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/AES123-final2.pdf



A novel approach to controlling early reflections is not to try to suppress or redirect them, but instead diffuse them. This results in a reduced reflection level but does not absorb them.
In general most surfaces absorb some of the sound energy and so the reflection is weakened by the reflection. Therefore the level of direct reflections will be less than that which would be predicted by the inverse square law, due to surface absorption.
Certainly less sound, there came from the roof and wall, certainly the more lower the sound it is. I think it is necessary to have this reflects, and not to toss them out. When you converter them so you hear them with out peaks, it is good.
Absorption, when done right, is far less frequency dependent than most diffusers are.
Old 18th July 2014
  #28
Lives for gear
 
Bjorn Omholt's Avatar
 

Hmmm. So shallow diffusors will remain the spectral content as oppose to thin absorbents? And who here is recommending to use thin absorbents to treat specular reflections?

Or I forgot; SMT wings are broadband and defeat the law of physics!
Old 18th July 2014
  #29
Lives for gear
 
Bjorn Omholt's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jim1961 View Post
Absorption, when done right, is far less frequency dependent than most diffusers are.
Heck, even a 50 mm (2") absorbent flushed to the wall will cover a greater frequency area then what these so called diffusors will.
Old 18th July 2014
  #30
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwo View Post
Hmmm. So shallow diffusors will remain the spectral content as oppose to thin absorbents? And who here is recommending to use thin absorbents to treat specular reflections?

Or I forgot; SMT wings are broadband and defeat the law of physics!
The wings are indeed shallow, but the sound are forced sideways in different long compartments ( max 80 cm) , instead of going in and out in the same compartment According to SMT its delayed 5ms.
Top Mentioned Products
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…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump