Hi Krivium, one observation from having a bunch of different type speakers running, is there's not much to be jealous about.
Ime/imo, there simply is no single system (or principle as you say) that universally sounds best for all tracks, no matter the room, the acoustics, the spl, the pattern control, the personal preferences, the whatever...
Just too much horses for courses going on...from production thru playback.
I never know which system a track will sound best on, or whether mono or stereo, or in what room or outdoors, at what SPL, or need EQ, etc etc
and it's what makes audio so beautiful and interesting to me...
Heck, i have an old pair of bose 901's hanging in the garage ceiling...(you know the oft heard saying "it has no highs, it has no lows, it must be Bose!" Lol.)
A few, (very few), tracks sound better in the garage than on anything else.
Must have been mastered on Bose 😀
There was this post from Jouanjean (2nd post on the page) were he describes the reasoning for his rooms. Not specifically speaker related, but a very interesting read in my opinion.
Front-To-Back Acoustic Technique - PRW
- Very controlled environment for the speakers
- Natural environment for the engineer
Room is quasi anechoic as far as the speakers are concerned, but it should give some "localization cues" for the engineer's self produced noises so that it sounds like a natural place.
ok thank you, no wonder then why i prefere sitting so close to my speakers, this distance seems to be very short indeed
shortly, to increase the critical distance, what would you say is the best way to go?
There are two basic choices to increase critical distance: either increase loudspeaker directivity, or reduce reverberation time.
Broad bandwidth applications of either each have advantages and disadvantages, but carried to extremes, neither are representative of what a typical consumer system in a typical room sounds like.
The "best way to go" is a decision each recording/mastering engineer must come to grips with based on budget, clientele, location, work habits, and dozens of other non-acoustic factors.
Art
My room isn't dampened to death because there's no need to. When I clap I don't have any major reflections, but it doesn't sound like outer space either.
Mark,
I'm not really jaleous about the number of system you have as i already reached the limit of loudspeakers pair i'm allowed by my family ( which is already relatively high 😉 ) and now have to get rid of some if i want more... which bother me as i am addicted! Even the 6,5"+1" i want to keep even if i dislike them...
This is more about the fact that you can make direct comparison of the different 'interesting' ( to me) principle in condition you know and are more or less repeatable.
I don't think there is a 'one size fit all' but some are more appealing to my own preference and would like to know which one is before downscaling a bit ( this will happen in future so...).
Scholl68,
Thank you for the link. Very interesting indeed and i find refreshing to have a popular pro in the field talking about the visual/ audio interference and which take care of the human factor/ ergonomy. This is of uttermost importance as pointed by HumbleDeer.
Do you know about B.Walker approach? This is interesting as he developed some of the principle used by T.Jouanjean around mid nineties ( front wall and the need for a less oppressing ambiance in the control room):
Controlled Image Design: The management of stereophonic image quality - BBC R&D
I wonder if T.Jouanjean is from french origins: we had an acoustician ( dedicated more to broadcast studio) which implemented what he called 'progressive acoustic' which is not really different from FtB principle. Of course there is a lot of difference between both approach but still...
My remark about the 'semi live' acoustic from FTB may not be all true ( but from my experience the use of diffuser tend to make 'lively' rooms) but compared to last Hidley's incarnation ( to my knowledge ) they certainly are. I've briefly heard a 'zero environnement' room and whoa... this is dead!
I've never heard a T.Jouanjean's room still but it could happen in future. I'm curious about the results he have.
Many fact he present about cues and view conflict i've experienced: there was a mixing room in Paris ( studio A Plus XXX) which was very strange to me: back wall fully covered with half cylinder diffusor and wider than profound. I had strange feelings because the room 'sounded' like it had a black hole back and there was a mismatch between what you saw and you heard. Very strange to me...
HumbleDeer, what does matter is how you feel your room and adapt to it, and that your work translate well to the outer world. The rest is theorical. It may help or not.
That said clap test is interesting from a human factor side ( to feel confortable) but doesn't really give info about how the room interact with your loudspeaker. So i stopped doinfg that ( it help with human interaction as people usually have a strange look at you when you do this. 😀 ).
I'm not really jaleous about the number of system you have as i already reached the limit of loudspeakers pair i'm allowed by my family ( which is already relatively high 😉 ) and now have to get rid of some if i want more... which bother me as i am addicted! Even the 6,5"+1" i want to keep even if i dislike them...
This is more about the fact that you can make direct comparison of the different 'interesting' ( to me) principle in condition you know and are more or less repeatable.
I don't think there is a 'one size fit all' but some are more appealing to my own preference and would like to know which one is before downscaling a bit ( this will happen in future so...).
Scholl68,
Thank you for the link. Very interesting indeed and i find refreshing to have a popular pro in the field talking about the visual/ audio interference and which take care of the human factor/ ergonomy. This is of uttermost importance as pointed by HumbleDeer.
Do you know about B.Walker approach? This is interesting as he developed some of the principle used by T.Jouanjean around mid nineties ( front wall and the need for a less oppressing ambiance in the control room):
Controlled Image Design: The management of stereophonic image quality - BBC R&D
I wonder if T.Jouanjean is from french origins: we had an acoustician ( dedicated more to broadcast studio) which implemented what he called 'progressive acoustic' which is not really different from FtB principle. Of course there is a lot of difference between both approach but still...
My remark about the 'semi live' acoustic from FTB may not be all true ( but from my experience the use of diffuser tend to make 'lively' rooms) but compared to last Hidley's incarnation ( to my knowledge ) they certainly are. I've briefly heard a 'zero environnement' room and whoa... this is dead!
I've never heard a T.Jouanjean's room still but it could happen in future. I'm curious about the results he have.
Many fact he present about cues and view conflict i've experienced: there was a mixing room in Paris ( studio A Plus XXX) which was very strange to me: back wall fully covered with half cylinder diffusor and wider than profound. I had strange feelings because the room 'sounded' like it had a black hole back and there was a mismatch between what you saw and you heard. Very strange to me...
HumbleDeer, what does matter is how you feel your room and adapt to it, and that your work translate well to the outer world. The rest is theorical. It may help or not.
That said clap test is interesting from a human factor side ( to feel confortable) but doesn't really give info about how the room interact with your loudspeaker. So i stopped doinfg that ( it help with human interaction as people usually have a strange look at you when you do this. 😀 ).
Last edited:
You are welcome, and thank you for the link to Walker's paper. I had read some excerpt from it but not the entire article. Besides Jouanjean, I think that most studio builders at least partly follow these principles nowadays.
I believe T. Jouanjean is belgian, probably walloon given his name.
Having DIY treated multiple rooms for recording/mixing, I have first experienced the oppressive feeling of an overdamped room in the mids/highs. For my currently under construction home studio (construction stopped thanks to the coronavirus 😡) I am trying to apply these principles. Lots of absorption for the low end, no early reflections for the speakers but some for the engineer and the musicians.
Well I just learned something, critical distance.
Based how its addressed, my first guess is that this is the area within a certain distance of the driver that Direct energy to reverb ratio is in favor of a lot of direct energy...enough to consider it...a critical area of speculation...something like that.
Thank you, i tried to optimize my speaker setup the other day and they end up at one meter distance from me, they almost stand on my sofa where i sit in. Any longer distance from the speaker and i get out of the sound bubble the speakers create, in the bubble it sounds i am almost in a club listen to jazz, outside the bubble everything sounds distant, like i am standing outside the club and try to hear what they playing in there. This setup has major dawbacks though, it looks crazy and there is only room for one person on the sofa, i guess a need a pair of very narrow-beam speakers to increase speaker-listener distance
"Well I just learned something, critical distance.
Based how its addressed, my first guess is that this is the area within a certain distance "
You might want to read some of Beranek's "Music, Acoustics & Architecture".
(Sorry, I'm new at how to do a quote from a previous post.)
Based how its addressed, my first guess is that this is the area within a certain distance "
You might want to read some of Beranek's "Music, Acoustics & Architecture".
(Sorry, I'm new at how to do a quote from a previous post.)
This is definitely on the mastering engineers plate. Maybe not as a rule but something to consider as we choose our listening position?
Camplo, of course you have to consider this but here again this is all relative to preferences.
I told i've seen as far as 5meters listening distance and although the room was big and dampenend this was well outside the critical distance and this didn't seems to have an impact about the work done in the place ( the engineer was one of the regular for the mainstream french stuffs: high seller artist).
It'is all about perspective, and know your tools and the target you have.
HumbleDeer is not locked on her listening point when she work, as i do and most do: when i was assistant i've always seen a moment during session when the engineer take a break, ask the client to have a critical listening session meanwhile then he/she get out of the room and listen how it sound in the corridor/ hallway. It helps to know how things sound 'overall' ( and the break help refreshing your ears, your focus capability and keep 'perspective'/ step back).
Same thing within your room. And as you work on a 'whole' with mastering duties it can be as important than the direct signal.
I like this analogy: imagine a forest. Timber works on individual trees (This is tracking/mixing) as such you need to be close to them ( trees) to clearly see the work to be done. When you are a landscaper you need to have a step back in order to take the thing as a whole.
Camplo, the document you have is like the article about CID very relevant about all this and from someone which is really into all this. Really spend a bit of time reading about different control room philosophy and implementation it will help you to make educated choices, i insist.
Don't focus on one theorical approach as this is constantly evolving ( eg: LEDE which is now critically seen by people from what i understand from Scholl's link, but it is a milestones you have to take into account, like all other approach like Hidley's one in my view) but try to find the common point into the approach and what they induce.
I told i've seen as far as 5meters listening distance and although the room was big and dampenend this was well outside the critical distance and this didn't seems to have an impact about the work done in the place ( the engineer was one of the regular for the mainstream french stuffs: high seller artist).
It'is all about perspective, and know your tools and the target you have.
HumbleDeer is not locked on her listening point when she work, as i do and most do: when i was assistant i've always seen a moment during session when the engineer take a break, ask the client to have a critical listening session meanwhile then he/she get out of the room and listen how it sound in the corridor/ hallway. It helps to know how things sound 'overall' ( and the break help refreshing your ears, your focus capability and keep 'perspective'/ step back).
Same thing within your room. And as you work on a 'whole' with mastering duties it can be as important than the direct signal.
I like this analogy: imagine a forest. Timber works on individual trees (This is tracking/mixing) as such you need to be close to them ( trees) to clearly see the work to be done. When you are a landscaper you need to have a step back in order to take the thing as a whole.
Camplo, the document you have is like the article about CID very relevant about all this and from someone which is really into all this. Really spend a bit of time reading about different control room philosophy and implementation it will help you to make educated choices, i insist.
Don't focus on one theorical approach as this is constantly evolving ( eg: LEDE which is now critically seen by people from what i understand from Scholl's link, but it is a milestones you have to take into account, like all other approach like Hidley's one in my view) but try to find the common point into the approach and what they induce.
Last edited:
In fact what i see as a trend is the acousticians try to manage ER in a different way. All more or less agree an RFZ is important but they try to apply this differently than 'just' use absorbtion: by redirecting the ER. It is very different than absorbing in that it doesn't 'steal' the energy into the room. Of course you'll still need to absorb but it seems more natural as an outcome ( at least for the one i've heard using this principle). But that ask for the use of diffusers and given the size allowed for control room don't stop to lower it makes it more and more tricky to implement.
I think like Art this as to be a compromise between extremes.
And in my view the ER are not to be decimated/absent/eliminated. If you want that use headphone 😉. The point is more to me to try to have them 'designed' ( level and time of arrival) to something that suit you ( and in the limit of what is achievable within your room dimension).
I'wiil post some audio example later this day for you to ear what i'm talking about.
I'd say from a pure 'listener enjoyment' perspective or point of view, LEDE still is a very valid choice. The addition of that live end working as a Haas Kicker works very well to complement the front stage. However it might just work a bit too good to be of use in Mixing/Mastering? Meaning if every song sounds a little better in a room like that, it probably wouldn't help you get the most out of the mix.
At least that's the impression I got when searching for information about Haas Kickers (over on Gearslutz, that's where I got a lot of "room" inspiration from). The search for something a little more pure, having less (natural) enhancement (like the Haas Kicker or the LEDE concept can bring) seemed to stem from that. Trying to get a reflection free environment for the speaker but keep the room to feel natural to the engineer (not sound/feel like an anechoic space).
Edit: So glad I can adjust my room to my taste, as I'm not Mixing or Mastering I can go hunt for the most enjoyable sound/room that I like 🙂.
The LEDE concept, or more specific a virtually created Haas kicker plays a big part to achieve that 'enjoyable space'. To get a feel of how these concepts work I've learned a lot from the various papers and presentations from David Griesinger. I bet information like he has presented is quite useful for mixing/Mastering engineers as well. Even though there are too many to list them all, this link provides a good attempt to make it available: Griesinger's Seach Engine
Last edited:
Hi Wesayso,
I don't have anything against LEDE even if from the different type of approach i've heard this is not the one i prefered about acoustic treatment. And as i once said to you i'm not 100% sure the room could be considered LEDE anymore as it was dismantled/ adapted to something else at the time i've heard it.
My remark was about reaction of the different engineer in the thread Scholl68 linked. Some seems to have grief about the principle. From my own i don't know as i thought the treatments i've seen dismantled was Haas Kicker and i learned from Jim and you they wasn't!
But i will link a crude approximation of what the ER supposed to be used give from a presentation point.
The room i've been the most in are Hidley's design from 80's: typical octogonal shaped room with sofit mounted Rm4. 4 rooms in total from 2 different studio build circa same period. They all shared some attribute with the LEDE presentation though.
And to the inverse of what many attend from a 'studio acoustic' they weren't overdamped in mid high, controled yes but not overdamped. Much less than other i've been in ( including the one i've been resident engineer in).
His goal was to mimic the sound he experienced one night on the rooftop of his studio where they had set up a pair of nice loudspeakers to chill out during a recording session, so some kind of hemi-anechoic if it means something.
Since this period he had a paradygm shift to dead room.
I don't have anything against LEDE even if from the different type of approach i've heard this is not the one i prefered about acoustic treatment. And as i once said to you i'm not 100% sure the room could be considered LEDE anymore as it was dismantled/ adapted to something else at the time i've heard it.
My remark was about reaction of the different engineer in the thread Scholl68 linked. Some seems to have grief about the principle. From my own i don't know as i thought the treatments i've seen dismantled was Haas Kicker and i learned from Jim and you they wasn't!
But i will link a crude approximation of what the ER supposed to be used give from a presentation point.
The room i've been the most in are Hidley's design from 80's: typical octogonal shaped room with sofit mounted Rm4. 4 rooms in total from 2 different studio build circa same period. They all shared some attribute with the LEDE presentation though.
And to the inverse of what many attend from a 'studio acoustic' they weren't overdamped in mid high, controled yes but not overdamped. Much less than other i've been in ( including the one i've been resident engineer in).
His goal was to mimic the sound he experienced one night on the rooftop of his studio where they had set up a pair of nice loudspeakers to chill out during a recording session, so some kind of hemi-anechoic if it means something.
Since this period he had a paradygm shift to dead room.
Yes, thats true for the Mastering engineer. We have to consider critical distance in the build too.
Potential. Directivity vs dynamic level vs room.....Preference is a mfker ain't it. High dynamic potential increases room options.... High directivity increases room options. How much of each do you guys want? I wanted 115db within xmax and beam city but I'm sure I pushed away from the middle road. HumbleDeer made a point of how uncomfortable working all day in such a small sweet-spot can be...comfortable is probably slightly higher on the list than any benefit that the smallest sweet spot could have, for the majority.
So how big of a sweet spot is just big enough to say anymore is luxurious? And why do I want to put a ribbon in a 400hz horn? Now that I think about...those HEDD models are flying hot off the shelves aren't they? Not cheap either. They all have ribbon/amt tweeter.....thats beam city...yet people swear by them...maybe sweet spot largeness is not as big a deal as I thought?
Last edited:
Since we are talking LEDE, attached is the concept paper from Don Davis of Syn Aud Con and Chips Davis:
"An approach to the standardized control room is found in the "live end-dead end"(LEDE TM) approach. Desirable features include control of the initial time delay, psychoacoustic removal of the directional clues belonging to the control room, and control of the early reflected sound field's density, spacing in time, and acoustic level. This results in an exceptionally neutral acoustic environment and allows development of a sound field at the mixer's ears which correlates remarkably with the sound field appearing at the microphones in the studio, thereby allowing precision judgements to be made at the mixing console."
As mentioned in post 73, LEDE is a tool designed to help mixing engineers "hear" the studio mics and early reflections before the control room acoustics take over in masking the sound from the mics. It also happens to be a dang fine listening room 🙂 Also note the section on critical distance.
With respect to sweet spot, this is from one of the specs from ITU and EBU I referenced earlier:
"An approach to the standardized control room is found in the "live end-dead end"(LEDE TM) approach. Desirable features include control of the initial time delay, psychoacoustic removal of the directional clues belonging to the control room, and control of the early reflected sound field's density, spacing in time, and acoustic level. This results in an exceptionally neutral acoustic environment and allows development of a sound field at the mixer's ears which correlates remarkably with the sound field appearing at the microphones in the studio, thereby allowing precision judgements to be made at the mixing console."
As mentioned in post 73, LEDE is a tool designed to help mixing engineers "hear" the studio mics and early reflections before the control room acoustics take over in masking the sound from the mics. It also happens to be a dang fine listening room 🙂 Also note the section on critical distance.
With respect to sweet spot, this is from one of the specs from ITU and EBU I referenced earlier:
