I'd ask if any have flared mouths. I'm guessing that maybe one has a flared mouth and maybe a second.
Even a waveguide will have serious resonances if the mouth is sharply terminated .
Two and three look like diffraction devices, but between one and four its hard to tell if one has a flared mouth and the other doesn't. For instance, if the exponential has a flare and the waveguide doesn't then the exponential will have the lower CSD. The reverse would also be true. If neither of them has a mouth flare then I'd be pretty sure which was which, but I need to know about the mouth since done incorrectly this will dominate the situation.
My guess is that four is the waveguide with a small mouth flare. That would make one the exponential.
Even a waveguide will have serious resonances if the mouth is sharply terminated .
Two and three look like diffraction devices, but between one and four its hard to tell if one has a flared mouth and the other doesn't. For instance, if the exponential has a flare and the waveguide doesn't then the exponential will have the lower CSD. The reverse would also be true. If neither of them has a mouth flare then I'd be pretty sure which was which, but I need to know about the mouth since done incorrectly this will dominate the situation.
My guess is that four is the waveguide with a small mouth flare. That would make one the exponential.
Here is why I don't think that it is. It beams at the high end and it has a fairly flat response meaning that it is not CD. The last one has a falling axial response which means that it is the most likeley candidate for CD and hence likely the waveguide. But it has reflections which are fairly widely spaced and so it has internal reflections from the mouth. Hence the mouth is too small and the termination is too sharp.
I am assuming of course that none of these have been EQ'd. EQ would change everthing.
I am assuming of course that none of these have been EQ'd. EQ would change everthing.
I would guess 1-waveguide, 2&3-diffraction, 4-exponential.Robh3606 said:When I asked Earl to post the impulse data I was hoping I could input it into CLIO. That didn't work out. I wanted to compare his data to 3 horns and a waveguide I had data for. I am curious to see if you can tell which is which from looking at the CSD plots. They break down into an exponential, 2 difraction type horns and a waveguide. Here are the CSD's which is which??
Rob
salas said:
I have no idea what production facilities you use or have visited, but your impression of the environment as science fiction is telling.
A control room houses sound production tools in an acoustically amenable, ergonomically designed way. It is not a fantasy, nor is it science fiction. What works is undeniable; and your criticism of control room environments is naive.
Having said all that, as technology changes, control rooms change, obviously, so we should not be stuck with any particular model. That is why I am interested in new monitor technology.
Perhaps the Gedlee monitor would be more appropriate for a mastering facility, given it’s unique directivity requirements. I would not be able to judge that without first hearing them. Or using them. And I certainly would be interested in doing that.
Again, I would encourage you to learn about Storyk’s designs if you are interested in the subject or aspire to be professional. WSDG -- Storyk’s firm (there are other good designers too, of course,) -- can also make your living room sound good as well.
I’m neither a studio nor a speaker designer. I’m just a guy who makes his living with his ears. That is my disclaimer.
Skywave-Rider said:
I have no idea what production facilities you use or have visited, but your impression of the environment as science fiction is telling.
A control room houses sound production tools in an acoustically amenable, ergonomically designed way. It is not a fantasy, nor is it science fiction. What works is undeniable; and your criticism of control room environments is naive.
Having said all that, as technology changes, control rooms change, obviously, so we should not be stuck with any particular model. That is why I am interested in new monitor technology.
Perhaps the Gedlee monitor would be more appropriate for a mastering facility, given it’s unique directivity requirements. I would not be able to judge that without first hearing them. Or using them. And I certainly would be interested in doing that.
Again, I would encourage you to learn about Storyk’s designs if you are interested in the subject or aspire to be professional. WSDG -- Storyk’s firm (there are other good designers too, of course,) -- can also make your living room sound good as well.
I’m neither a studio nor a speaker designer. I’m just a guy who makes his living with his ears. That is my disclaimer.
So you latch on starship Enterprise phrase to think that I am just imagining the average control room? Or that I had just a school excursion there?
Do you imply that the desk isn't the centerpiece show off to the hourly paying producer? That there is not a reflective glass window flanked by the mains or a huge TFT showing the live room and numerous others displaying cue programs?
That the nearfields arent used 80% of the time? That they aren't subject of strong mixdesk reflections? etc....etc...etc...
Maybe you are talking Abbey road acoustics? I am talking average studio.
P.S. Lower your nose when responding in 'me knows' tone.
macka said:
And many other anti acoustics arrangements and practices, because a studio MUST look trendy to attract production.
Give them the best sounding monitors and dictate placement and acoustics, and you are out.
Speakers are demanded to be known. The producers must feel compatible.
Depending on the luxury level you get better or worse but always ESTABLISHED equipment and techniques. Try break that bcs you 'push' an actually better thing.
Only when owning a studio and you are a big name in the biz you may start a trend. And you get SPONSORED for that.
But what I know? I am just 'aspiring' to be in a control room one day.
salas said:
And many other anti acoustics arrangements and practices, because a studio MUST look trendy to attract production.
Give them the best sounding monitors and dictate placement and acoustics, and you are out.
Speakers are demanded to be known. The producers must feel compatible.
Depending on the luxury level you get better or worse but always ESTABLISHED equipment and techniques. Try break that bcs you 'push' an actually better thing.
Only when owning a studio and you are a big name in the biz you may start a trend. And you get SPONSORED for that.
But what I know? I am just 'aspiring' to be in a control room one day.
Well, that's the impression you give.
I will agree that there are a lot of bad rooms out there. But that's true for anything.
You can always rent gear you desire/need and bring it in. You can build too, you're a DIYer, yes? That's up to you.
I find sound production to be the most creative pursuit, and rules are made to be broken in any creative medium. Perhaps you're caught in a niche you don't like. Maybe do something else? I'm not good at giving career advice.
To reiterate, I would still like to hear the monitor/waveguide in discussion.
Skywave-Rider said:
You recommended some NY consultants. Are those who did that?:
''Designed by architect and acoustician John Storyk, the studio was made specifically for Hendrix, with round windows and a machine capable of generating ambient lighting in a myriad of colors. It was designed to have a relaxing feel to encourage Jimi's creativity, but at the same time provide a professional recording atmosphere. Engineer Eddie Kramer upheld this by refusing to allow any drug use during session work. Artist Lance Jost painted the studio in a psychedelic space theme.''
I am sorry but Dr. Geddes is right again as almost always when acoustics are involved. Control rooms are not the best example of acoustics. And I confirm that for the average studio. I also maintain that the criteria are foremostly trendy for looks, acoustics and equipment. Try your best.
Regards
Attachments
That’s Electric Lady Studios.
I assume you know Jimi Hendrix.
It was Storyk’s first design c. 1969/70 I would think.
The picture you attached reflects the studio’s important historical psychedelic lineage. But the gear is newer. I don’t know what’s in there now, I think it’s been recently refitted.
Interesting architectural challenge: An underground river flows beneath the studio.
To this day that studio is viable.
Storyk’s name speaks for itself. You can talk to him at any AES convention, he’s very approachable. And I don’t think he needs me as a publicity agent.
I do not know what “average” is because I have not been everywhere.
It’s clear I’ve been arguing with you, not Geddes.
Anyway, like I said, I’m open to new monitor technology, maybe I’ll get a chance to hear the Gedlee design some time.
I assume you know Jimi Hendrix.
It was Storyk’s first design c. 1969/70 I would think.
The picture you attached reflects the studio’s important historical psychedelic lineage. But the gear is newer. I don’t know what’s in there now, I think it’s been recently refitted.
Interesting architectural challenge: An underground river flows beneath the studio.
To this day that studio is viable.
Storyk’s name speaks for itself. You can talk to him at any AES convention, he’s very approachable. And I don’t think he needs me as a publicity agent.
I do not know what “average” is because I have not been everywhere.
It’s clear I’ve been arguing with you, not Geddes.
Anyway, like I said, I’m open to new monitor technology, maybe I’ll get a chance to hear the Gedlee design some time.
salas said:
If you didn't notice, I punted on the control room design question because it is not my speciality. Mine is home theater and listening rooms. I did not understand why Skywave-Rider was attacking me from the very begining as all I said was that the question should be routed to Kenny who has designed dozens of control rooms. I have consulted for some of the NY room designers on room shape for LF modes as my PhD thesis is used extensively by these guys for setting the room shape. But my rooms are all rectangular because that is simple the most practical and can be made to work very well if done right. Basically room shape is a secondary issue, not a primary consideration.
I am not arguing with you. It's clear I'm not a scientist. But I was asking questions. I believe the last question I asked of you was whether or not I could demo the monitors, but received no reply. The argument/discussion has been going on interminably between salas and myself.
I don't think you are suggesting I should not be interested in hearing the monitors; that's why we're all here I'm sure.
Attacking? Hardly. I'm interested and engaged. In fact I am learning about speaker building as an avocation, and that's how I came to this place.
I don't think you are suggesting I should not be interested in hearing the monitors; that's why we're all here I'm sure.
Attacking? Hardly. I'm interested and engaged. In fact I am learning about speaker building as an avocation, and that's how I came to this place.
gedlee said:
Skywave-Rider said:
Lets see what I originally wrote and where you came in:
At a point Dr. Geddes said that control room acoustics are not best examples of the art. He also said that it is not his field and he can't talk as an authority for control rooms.
I supported his view against views that he is posing not that serious saying that.
You criticized my view as probably just an idea of someone who had a flinting glimpse of some control room once in his life.
You recommended a very well established studio consultancy.
I returned saying that I maintain that studios are 'shops' with clients and their design is primarily dictated by trends.
I looked up your recommendation and what I see? Their seminal work is built to please psychedelic zeitgeist of the 60's looks. The Lady Day works till now in NY and does Foo Fighters etc.
I attached the main photo on their current website. What we see there? A huge desk (starship Enterprise was a bad analogy? sorry) standard NS10 nearfields perched on meter bridge on their wrong side, overhead monitors reflecting directly on the desk, flanking a glass window.
Where I was wrong? Trends? Set up? Or that photo is not representative of a typical control room?
Members here can judge for them selves. I don't see our discussion as an argument, bcs you haven't argued at all on the set up of equipment in control rooms.
Thank you for that Jimmy Hendrix clue. Really I will Google that name up! Thanks!
I've not a clue what you like or would like.
I said the JBL horn that was measured here might sound better with the foam insert. I only brought it up because the foam was mentioned in some earlier posts.
ALL horns and waveguides produce HOMs, which are distortion, and the foam reduces their intensity, therefore ..... some folk might like the horn more with the foam insert.
Easy experiment: polyurethane, reticulated, 30 ppi foam. It's used as a pond water filter.
Worked for me. Might work for someone else.
The mains in that pic you posted are positioned so you can’t get reflections off the console at mix position.
I hate NS10 monitors, and always change them if they are there.
Yes, meter bridge mounting is a problem. We agree!! Yay.
Probably better to mount just behind the meter bridge, and depending on what’s in front of you, could avoid work surface reflections.
Take into consideration that the environment is changing rapidly, and console or work surface footprint is diminishing. In some cases, like I mentioned, a mastering room might have little or nothing. And I suggested this might be a good application for the Gedlee monitor.
If you see what I have said as criticism, perhaps I was responding appropriately or in-kind; but I’ve tried to take what you’ve said at face value as best I could.
I'm glad you took the time to find out about Hendrix, a lot of people don't know him these days. Hey, even I was young at that time ...LOL.
I hate NS10 monitors, and always change them if they are there.
Yes, meter bridge mounting is a problem. We agree!! Yay.
Probably better to mount just behind the meter bridge, and depending on what’s in front of you, could avoid work surface reflections.
Take into consideration that the environment is changing rapidly, and console or work surface footprint is diminishing. In some cases, like I mentioned, a mastering room might have little or nothing. And I suggested this might be a good application for the Gedlee monitor.
If you see what I have said as criticism, perhaps I was responding appropriately or in-kind; but I’ve tried to take what you’ve said at face value as best I could.
I'm glad you took the time to find out about Hendrix, a lot of people don't know him these days. Hey, even I was young at that time ...LOL.
salas said:
jzagaja said:
Thank you, jzagaja.
That confirms that the noise levels in the inital datasets are comparable, at least by this metric.
While there are some differences in detail the two CSDs look very similar to those you originally posted.
May we see the two origninal files, waveguide_00.txt and jbl_00.txt (@96 & 97) processed for "low noise" as you illustated @164 please?
Or is "Low noise" merely the different file?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.