I'am not aware of something like this. Does it ever existed?
I remember of some Diy monitors ( there was a Radian coax based one long time ago) and more recently Art offered a design here.
Other probably exist too but something dedicated to mastering?
Could be a dream. Lot of issues to solve though. ( i have secret love with ( small diameter) full range but i can't admit in public). 🙂
Hopefully I haven't warded off the others, you all have great ideas. Moving on from the previous argument, hopefully in good spirits, we can reset and focus on designing what the board finds as an acceptable current mastering monitor design for the DIY enthusiast.
The first thing to do is to set some parameters on where it is designed to be used, how big it can be, what type of crossover is acceptable, the price if it is an issue etc etc.
Those parameters will allow some designs and exclude others straight away. If you wish to avoid the 700 to 7K range for a crossover, the good design choices narrow very quickly.
Is it going to be used in the same position as most of the monitors in your pictures, elevated behind a desk?
Do you want to be in the nearfield or the farfield, how far will the listening distance be and low loud must the speaker go.
Do you want the speaker to be more directive to make room treatments less mandatory or do you want it to be wider to be more representative of what most people gravitate towards.
There is no ultimate, only the best compromise given a specific set of constraints.
Those parameters will allow some designs and exclude others straight away. If you wish to avoid the 700 to 7K range for a crossover, the good design choices narrow very quickly.
Is it going to be used in the same position as most of the monitors in your pictures, elevated behind a desk?
Do you want to be in the nearfield or the farfield, how far will the listening distance be and low loud must the speaker go.
Do you want the speaker to be more directive to make room treatments less mandatory or do you want it to be wider to be more representative of what most people gravitate towards.
There is no ultimate, only the best compromise given a specific set of constraints.
Not sure i understand so i will clarify.
I like point source. Small diameter full range are fun to listen at very low volume ( late night) in very nearfield and they beam high enough in frequency for them not to bother me too much.
Big coax obviously doesn't have issue with level and extension in lower freq and offer directivity control.
Given the kind of music i listen the most small full rangers are out of question... but for acoustic music at low level i like them ( and late night i usually exclude things that are either too brutal or energic).
In fact i think i've got issue with dome tweeter. The more i listen to other kind of speakers the less i love them ( in general).
I like point source. Small diameter full range are fun to listen at very low volume ( late night) in very nearfield and they beam high enough in frequency for them not to bother me too much.
Big coax obviously doesn't have issue with level and extension in lower freq and offer directivity control.
Given the kind of music i listen the most small full rangers are out of question... but for acoustic music at low level i like them ( and late night i usually exclude things that are either too brutal or energic).
In fact i think i've got issue with dome tweeter. The more i listen to other kind of speakers the less i love them ( in general).
Last edited:
Right. DIY a lot of times means, ending up in your basement or a spare room. That still comes with some variance. Are there benefits to room size? Smaller room, smaller resonance. Mitchba said something about people not knowing how to handle the resonance of larger rooms. I think it is a wise choice to aim for a near field experience because.....what benefit is far field, to mastering? Near field does give the design a potential to be used by more people?
Some one earlier suggested that the mastering engineer needs the most narrow polar achieving the lest reflection..... I asked if Floyde and Geddes agreed....or basically if everyone here agrees with that...I can't say. For most things the theoretical best should be assumed. Whats the deal with directivity? I was told if I have beaming that it would not match the room energy and that it would augment my perception, by mr. Geddes.
weltersys -
krivium
Maybe some more people will comment.
- I don't think this trend will go...if could find a trend on room size.
Last edited:
I'm still wondering. Being located past critical distance make you listen to the room mainly, not the loudspeakers anymore.
That said being only in direct field isn't better to me neither especially for mastering duties.
I've seen both used though. I prefer to be located at critical distance for my own.
Larger room give differents constraints the lower freq mode ask for some particular acoustic treatments ( bass traps) and they aren't always done.
That said in a well engineered room bigger sound better to me. Especially when there is an RFZ ( done by redirecting the ER, not absorbing them only... but it is preference related i suppose).
Last edited:
Last edited:
No middle of the room will locate you in the worst spot regarding axial mode ( in case of rectangle room).
It is usually recomended to be located first 1/3 front ( you are usually outside mosts modes at this place but it have to be verified by simulation) but it vary with different shaped room, treatments, etc,etc,...
For example in the LEDE Mitchba talked about you have an outer shell with odd shape ( wrt what you see in the control room) to keep the mode outside sweetspot iirc. But this is not mastering room.
Take a look at Non Environnement control room from Hidley. One mastering room in Nashville is done this way and in use. I once read B.Katz comment about it and it was almost exstatic ( and i would believe him as he have nothing to sell in that case).
We drift too much into pro acoustic here and won't appeal the typical reader here Camplo.
You've got my pm..and document to read on this. 😉
It is usually recomended to be located first 1/3 front ( you are usually outside mosts modes at this place but it have to be verified by simulation) but it vary with different shaped room, treatments, etc,etc,...
For example in the LEDE Mitchba talked about you have an outer shell with odd shape ( wrt what you see in the control room) to keep the mode outside sweetspot iirc. But this is not mastering room.
Take a look at Non Environnement control room from Hidley. One mastering room in Nashville is done this way and in use. I once read B.Katz comment about it and it was almost exstatic ( and i would believe him as he have nothing to sell in that case).
We drift too much into pro acoustic here and won't appeal the typical reader here Camplo.
You've got my pm..and document to read on this. 😉
Last edited:
Why not tell what you think about the xover and ear's frequency sensitivity graph?
It 'll be a difficult task to define what is needed for mastering nonetheless for the reason already given: different approach from different people.
We have already some cue from the pictures you posted about the trend of the moment though: most room had either mtm with waveguide either multiple vertically aligned loudspeakers ( Dunlavy, Dynaudio,...).
- The middle of the room is better is it not? After we can say a general room size lets set it up technically correct is all I'm saying. The desk style is apart of most peoples studios. 15ft x 30ft? Average ceiling height?
in my small listening room (3,25 x 5,20 x 2,50m) listen near the middle of the room sounds best to me, sitting any closer then 1,1 meter to the back wall and the room starts to dominate the sound to much
all room sizes seems to have their disadvantages, but in a large rooms you can at least place the speakers and the listening chair far from any walls
Testing out the sort of room interaction you will get in the modal region is not too hard with REW's room sim
Here is an example of the dimensions posted above, with a quick move around the response is not too bad in these locations. A few peaks that could be dealt with EQ and not a huge number of nulls.
I have found that this is pretty accurate in a rectangular room, surprising that very small changes can make big differences. Some of the rules of thumb work out OK, others not so much.
Add some subs in strategic locations and it would look even better.
Here is an example of the dimensions posted above, with a quick move around the response is not too bad in these locations. A few peaks that could be dealt with EQ and not a huge number of nulls.
I have found that this is pretty accurate in a rectangular room, surprising that very small changes can make big differences. Some of the rules of thumb work out OK, others not so much.
Add some subs in strategic locations and it would look even better.
Attachments
Hi Celef,
What you experience from your closest position to back wall are reflection from it but it is a long time since you room dominate the sound. Try the calculator linked and you will see by yourself the critical distance ( point were you are at 50/50 between direct sound and 'reverb') is way shorter than you could imagine:
RT60 - Distance critique
I see thing differently: the larger the room the more spread you have between the spot where room mode occurs. In other word you have a little bit more of lattitude of placement of listening spot and loudspeaker location. That said that doesn't make the mode disappear and the bigger the room the lower they wil happen those the treatment are bulkier.
Other thing, there is certain dimension ratio which are easier to deal with than others. Those are well known from acoustician and from a long time as they help to have the mode being spread wider in freq which make them less cumulative as outcome.
The last sentence is interesting and this is what is done in most domestic room and in most mastering room too. The reason from the mastering engineer is that it mimic the condition of use of end users.
Ironically when an acoustician is involved into the studio build they ( the most popular one and considered to be the 'best' at what they do) favour inwall as it solve many issues (zero diffraction, increase in bass spl capability for a given spl ( those lower distortion overall), regularity/consistency of result,...).
That is another reason why i think it will be difficult to make what Camplo had in mind with these thread so much different way to approach things and habits.
Last edited:
A larger room allows greater distance to reflective surfaces and can make placement easier, there will be greater reverberation with the bigger space and different modal distribution. Large to some might be small to others so again this is relative.
Most of the setups I see seem to be further than nearfield, that is probably a decision for the individual and dependant on available room size. A very small room is practically forced to be nearfield.
Again what is narrow, Geddes describes his speakers as narrow directivity, I think they are a 90 degree pattern. This is obviously narrower than a dome tweeter on a flat baffle but not as narrow as a 60 degree pro-sound horn either.
Reducing room reflections through directivity will change the spatial impression, the imaging may become more pinpoint, the sound drier. This could be perceived as being more accurate and true to the source or exactly the opposite, another preference choice.
Everything beams at some point it just depends on how much and how high or low. Most speakers narrow in directivity towards high frequencies and therefore beam. What most seem to agree on is that there should be no sudden power response changes and that making the off axis sound as smooth as possible making the reflections spectrally similar to the direct reduces timbral degradation from the reflections.
Waveguides help to make the directivity more similar over a wider range. They can help to extend the response of the high frequency drivers and push the crossover frequencies lower.
Narrower directivity means a longer critical distance, so the narrower the directivity the further away you need to listen to be at that distance.
Yes but it is linked to volume of room and reverb time and in small room this is most always the only solution to be above 1meter critical distance.
Guys i'm happy to discuss all this but we have a subsection dedicated to acoustic and we drift from initial subject...
Fluid do you have some observation about where you put xover in the freq range? I think the subject is interesting and i've done some observation by myself but before introducing them i would like other view ( and don't bias point of view) if any?
Last edited: