The point about the mtm configuration is that it was originally intended for p.a. applications.
In these, since the geometry inherently cancels lobe steering, it allows you to optimise the crossover for a good vertical beam withought having to worry about lobe steering at the same time.
For domestic use the 2.5 way system is generally better since it allows greater design flexibility and a moderate amount of lobe steering is tolerable.
rcw.
In these, since the geometry inherently cancels lobe steering, it allows you to optimise the crossover for a good vertical beam withought having to worry about lobe steering at the same time.
For domestic use the 2.5 way system is generally better since it allows greater design flexibility and a moderate amount of lobe steering is tolerable.
rcw.
Yes, MTM is better for vertical lobing control with a poorer horizontal control. A single woofer and a larger waveguide has better horizontal control with a degraded vertical control (a couple of lobes at the crossover). Take you pick. In a home situation, horizontal control is critical while vertical control is only marginally important. And if you have some actions in place to control the ceiling and floor reflections (as you should), then vertical control is all but irrelavent.
Don't think the floor reflection is critical because it's always there and has always a very short delay (distance ear to floor and sound source to floor is small). To get the ITDG of near sound sources of a big room in a small listening room, delay and level of first reflections need to be reduced.
Best, Markus
Best, Markus
Markus
Is this stated wrong? If its NOT critical then why does the "delay and level of first reflections need to be reduced". The two things seem contradictory to me.
Is this stated wrong? If its NOT critical then why does the "delay and level of first reflections need to be reduced". The two things seem contradictory to me.
I expressed myself unclearly. Delay and level of first reflections from ceiling and walls need to be controlled. But I don't consider the floor reflection to be critical.
Concert halls with an ITDG not bigger 20 ms are considered the best sounding ones (see Beranek). So most mixing engineers don't work with pre delays smaller than that. Additionally most mixing rooms are built in a way to be reflection free for at least 15 ms (-10 dB). If you want to have the same listening experience as the mixing engineer had, then you have to control first reflections in normal listening rooms as they are always too early.
Best, Markus
Concert halls with an ITDG not bigger 20 ms are considered the best sounding ones (see Beranek). So most mixing engineers don't work with pre delays smaller than that. Additionally most mixing rooms are built in a way to be reflection free for at least 15 ms (-10 dB). If you want to have the same listening experience as the mixing engineer had, then you have to control first reflections in normal listening rooms as they are always too early.
Best, Markus
Markus
This still seems contradictory to me. The floor reflection IS very early, why not get rid of it too? I don't understand that.
My philosophy is to control the side reflections with the speaker directivity, but to elliminate the floor and ceiling reflections with room treatments. How is this not the right thing to do?
I've not been in many mixing rooms, but a reflection free time delay of 15 ms. would require a very big room.
This still seems contradictory to me. The floor reflection IS very early, why not get rid of it too? I don't understand that.
My philosophy is to control the side reflections with the speaker directivity, but to elliminate the floor and ceiling reflections with room treatments. How is this not the right thing to do?
I've not been in many mixing rooms, but a reflection free time delay of 15 ms. would require a very big room.
Imagine someone sitting in front of you, playing an instrument. You'll hear the instrument with the floor reflection - it's part of the instruments character. Why would you want to eliminate that? The bigger the distance, the smaller the delay between direct sound and floor reflection becomes.
15 ms can be achieved by flush mounting the speakers and directing lateral reflections around the listening position to the back. If the back wall is more than 2.5 m behind the listener, then you'll have a delay of 15 ms (15 ms = 5.145 m).
Best, Markus
15 ms can be achieved by flush mounting the speakers and directing lateral reflections around the listening position to the back. If the back wall is more than 2.5 m behind the listener, then you'll have a delay of 15 ms (15 ms = 5.145 m).
Best, Markus
Loudspeakers are not musical instruments. The floor bounce is in the recording and doesn't need to be added in the reproduction.
That's not true (anymore). True stereo recordings using only two microphones (where "The floor bounce is in the recording") are seldom nowadays. Nearfield miking is added as needed (to place the sound source near the listener - high ITDG). All other productions (Jazz, Pop, etc. which is 90% or more of all productions out there) are nearfield recordings (without the floor bounce) with added artificial reverberation. Instruments are always mixed with floor reflections (or better mixing console or meter bridge reflections) present.
And yes, the truth is that sometimes speakers have to play the role of imitating an instrument if the signal is solely mixed to the left or right channel.
Best, Markus
And yes, the truth is that sometimes speakers have to play the role of imitating an instrument if the signal is solely mixed to the left or right channel.
Best, Markus
If the recording are haphazard on this point then I don't think you can argue for or against floor reflection.
I completely agree. If there is no floor bounce in the recodring then the producer didn't want it. Hence there is no reason to add it in the playback.
Speakers should never imitate a musical instument. They should deliver what is on the recording - period. No floor bounce in the recording then there should be no floor bounce in the playback. Marcus you are making it sound like its OK to modify the playback if you want to. The floor bounce is no exception to the reflection rule. There shouldn't be any early reflections no matter where they come from.
Speakers should never imitate a musical instument. They should deliver what is on the recording - period. No floor bounce in the recording then there should be no floor bounce in the playback. Marcus you are making it sound like its OK to modify the playback if you want to. The floor bounce is no exception to the reflection rule. There shouldn't be any early reflections no matter where they come from.
I totally agree that speakers should deliver what is on the recording. But that includes the situation of mimicking a real instrument or even a human voice - ever watched the news? Close miked voice (no floor reflection) with no or very little reverberation added.
There'll be a floor reflection (or mixing console reflection) in the control room while mixing - period 🙂 So the mix will reflect the presence of that reflection. What happens when you take away that reflection when playing back that recording at home?
Best, Markus
There'll be a floor reflection (or mixing console reflection) in the control room while mixing - period 🙂 So the mix will reflect the presence of that reflection. What happens when you take away that reflection when playing back that recording at home?
Best, Markus
There shouldn't be any early reflections in the mixing room. Correct the problem at the source, not at the playback.
Ah the myth of "hearing it just like the engineer did" returns. Time to buy some ns10s and remove as many reflections as possible from our listening rooms so we too can tweak all the fake reverbs in the recording. Wait, we don't do that part? Then why do we need the same listening environment? There is no standard for what a control room sounds like nor do I think there ever will be because this would require we all listen in corresponding standard control rooms purpose built in our homes. As if music needs that...
I really don't think this is the point and I feel it somewhat belittles what these people do for a living. They're not sweating whether or not you hear a floor bounce on some random instrument so why are you? I'm not saying we should go crazy and make the speaker sound however we want, accurate is a good ideal, but thinking we need absolute accuracy down to the waveform level of what arrived at the engineer's ears is not only impossible but also unnecessary. Are we going to start including a full hearing test of the engineer with every album so we can compare it to our own and eq our speakers to correct for what will obviously be differences in the way we hear? Should it also include molds of his ear lobes to slip over our own? 😀 Getting carried away now.
I really don't think this is the point and I feel it somewhat belittles what these people do for a living. They're not sweating whether or not you hear a floor bounce on some random instrument so why are you? I'm not saying we should go crazy and make the speaker sound however we want, accurate is a good ideal, but thinking we need absolute accuracy down to the waveform level of what arrived at the engineer's ears is not only impossible but also unnecessary. Are we going to start including a full hearing test of the engineer with every album so we can compare it to our own and eq our speakers to correct for what will obviously be differences in the way we hear? Should it also include molds of his ear lobes to slip over our own? 😀 Getting carried away now.
gedlee said:
Aren't you the one that is always advocating the practical solution and now you make a completely unrealistic request that every single one of the tens of thounds recording studios out there should use mixing consoles that function as absorbers at the same time? Such a device doesn't exist.
poptart, the original of a sound recording is created in a mixing room. So the same principles of room design apply to top quality listening rooms. There are fundamental design criterias because physics doesn't change.
markus76 said:
A mixing console isn't a floor. Your reasoning here is flawed. I'd do either given what suits for convenience rather than try to out think the problem.
ShinOBIWAN, you're right, it's even worse. It's more like a table in front of the listener. That reduces the delay of direct sound and reflection even more.
I thought in most cases the instruments were "taped" directly and in case of strong acoustic instruments certain precautions are made
Besides, much music today are made by machines
Do you really know what you are talking about
Besides, much music today are made by machines
Do you really know what you are talking about
- Status
- Not open for further replies.