2-4m listening distance.... whats the size of our ideal room? Since we are DIY, might as well find what is the best scenario that one could fall into by chance at home?
Attachments
Last edited:
More interesting compromises...
FWIW, a couple of interesting (though obviously completely different) design approaches (both dynamic-driver based):
- Larger-scale affair with higher output (by a fellow forum member):
http://hannover-hardcore.de/infinity_classics/!!!/Aries M Dokumentation.pdf
In Deutsch, but you can extract/translate the text ... WMTMW thought through - a clever adaptation of the Horbach/Keele symmetrical-pair constant vertical beamwidth array, but with less DSP power required (miniDsp suffices); manages to throw a 40-50 degree vertical beamwidth (see polar graphs) with practically none of the usual willy-nilly lobing/destructive interference/haphazard "reflection reduction" claimed by conventional MTM designs, uniform wide horizontal dispersion into the far off-axis (if you care about that), close to 120 db 1w/1m output capacity. Pretty specific driver types/diameters/spacing requirements though...
- A little guy:
Q-2b: Close Field Studio Monitor
a three-way expansion of the Pluto/LX521 idea, with a proper compact mid + tweeter combo that will provide some decent output and refined HF unlike some little "midtweet" cone driver invariably operating in breakup mode at a much lower point (let alone disproportionately beaming).
- Omni all the way:
BAYZ audio
Measurements of the radial driver being employed:
Bayz Audio Counterpoint 2.0 >>>>Rhapsody.Audio | What's Best Audio and Video Forum. The Best High End Audio Forum on the planet!
See posts 22 & 26 for polar/FR/CSD plots... -3db @ 50K - no breakups... and no idea how it might be DIYed though...
And as ScottG suggested, use a virtual mixer...
As for multiple speakers, one can also venture beyond the usual stereo/multi-channel thing, and go object-oriented:
Verax Technologies, Inc.
Good luck...
But the unfortunate fact remains that the final listener will still be hearing something different if they don't exactly replicate the engineer's rig/environment, otherwise "accurate reproduction" still degrades into guesswork ultimately resulting in an arbitrarily re-interpretative odyssey (which however is exactly the kind of distractive quest that them audiophiles love to keep themselves preoccupied with ad infinitum).
FWIW, a couple of interesting (though obviously completely different) design approaches (both dynamic-driver based):
- Larger-scale affair with higher output (by a fellow forum member):
http://hannover-hardcore.de/infinity_classics/!!!/Aries M Dokumentation.pdf
In Deutsch, but you can extract/translate the text ... WMTMW thought through - a clever adaptation of the Horbach/Keele symmetrical-pair constant vertical beamwidth array, but with less DSP power required (miniDsp suffices); manages to throw a 40-50 degree vertical beamwidth (see polar graphs) with practically none of the usual willy-nilly lobing/destructive interference/haphazard "reflection reduction" claimed by conventional MTM designs, uniform wide horizontal dispersion into the far off-axis (if you care about that), close to 120 db 1w/1m output capacity. Pretty specific driver types/diameters/spacing requirements though...
- A little guy:
Q-2b: Close Field Studio Monitor
a three-way expansion of the Pluto/LX521 idea, with a proper compact mid + tweeter combo that will provide some decent output and refined HF unlike some little "midtweet" cone driver invariably operating in breakup mode at a much lower point (let alone disproportionately beaming).
- Omni all the way:
BAYZ audio
Measurements of the radial driver being employed:
Bayz Audio Counterpoint 2.0 >>>>Rhapsody.Audio | What's Best Audio and Video Forum. The Best High End Audio Forum on the planet!
See posts 22 & 26 for polar/FR/CSD plots... -3db @ 50K - no breakups... and no idea how it might be DIYed though...
And as ScottG suggested, use a virtual mixer...
As for multiple speakers, one can also venture beyond the usual stereo/multi-channel thing, and go object-oriented:
Verax Technologies, Inc.
Good luck...
But the unfortunate fact remains that the final listener will still be hearing something different if they don't exactly replicate the engineer's rig/environment, otherwise "accurate reproduction" still degrades into guesswork ultimately resulting in an arbitrarily re-interpretative odyssey (which however is exactly the kind of distractive quest that them audiophiles love to keep themselves preoccupied with ad infinitum).
Oh God Razer is getting into sound design....oh wait, they are just Razer sponsored...ok ok
Interesting stuff Firebirdrising
Like I said, we are DIY so it might be best to decide what might be on average the best scenario for one to fall into at home....a long basement for example?.. and base our build around that, emphasis on our build.
Last edited:
Enough Room? Sidebar | Stereophile.com This has some information on the project, EUREKA Archimedes, if you search for that you will find a fair bit of information on it if not the study itself, Andrew Jones of ELAC, KEF, TAD talks about it in some of his video interviews.
They vary a lot some are very wide horizontally and not too narrow vertically, some narrow considerably at high frequencies in the vertical.
Have a look at the Mundorf AMT Catalogue, they have some quite good measurements that show what the different sizes and shapes look like on and off axis.
http://www.mundorf.com/PDF/mundorf_hifiamt_2018_0711-web.pdf
Mitch has done an interesting review of the Purifi demo speaker which is there 6.5 woofer with a Mundorf AMT.
Purifi PTT6.5 Woofer and 1ET400A Amplifier Technology Review - Reviews - Audiophile Style
Exigy.
Well... i've heard. Former designer of BOXER loudspeaker, England based. The whole studio was designed by the guy. One of the better room i've ever heard: loudspeaker was 1x15" Tad, mid was ( from the owner words) ATC dome and tweeter was a SEAS 1" but i don't know if it was a Volt or an ATC for the dome mid. Active dsp filtered ( BSS dsp). I don't know the amp used.
Not to big control room not to damped. It was 10 years ago since i visited the studio and meanwhile it closed but at that time it was one of the better room around Paris.
'Karism production' ( owner Karim Succar) was the name of the place you can still find pictures online.
Well... i've heard. Former designer of BOXER loudspeaker, England based. The whole studio was designed by the guy. One of the better room i've ever heard: loudspeaker was 1x15" Tad, mid was ( from the owner words) ATC dome and tweeter was a SEAS 1" but i don't know if it was a Volt or an ATC for the dome mid. Active dsp filtered ( BSS dsp). I don't know the amp used.
Not to big control room not to damped. It was 10 years ago since i visited the studio and meanwhile it closed but at that time it was one of the better room around Paris.
'Karism production' ( owner Karim Succar) was the name of the place you can still find pictures online.
If I state that the mixing / mastering engineer should get a flat frequency response, without any reflections.
Is that a base we can agree on?
Is that a base we can agree on?
I like the idea of lesser reflections, seems to make the approach simpler...but we cannot continue to argue approach when there are several....all successful. Completely removing reflections is not apart of every successful approach is what I mean, and having a dead room is the desired approach for some successful studios...so its not a deal breaker...and time will tell who ultimately comes out on top but before that ever happens active room acoustic treatment is going to make the potential for create what ever desired experience.
The ultimate room experience for me isn't dead or lively its one where I can adjust it to dead or lively on the fly
If we keep talking deep room philosophy how will we move onto selecting drivers and what not? A good set of monitors should be able to support various room philosophies.
The ultimate room experience for me isn't dead or lively its one where I can adjust it to dead or lively on the fly
If we keep talking deep room philosophy how will we move onto selecting drivers and what not? A good set of monitors should be able to support various room philosophies.
Yes and no. About the flat frequency response ( anechoic) yes but it means steady state will see a downward tilting FR in room. Which may not being considered as flat.
Early Reflections is another point. I don't think we need to not have them ( maybe except from ceilling which if it was possible could be eliminated to great gain). Lateral ones help in some way and are not that detrimental if they are controlled.
Thats is why i would like to find a way to share the example i talked about previously for you to make your own idea about what ( one of their) effect is about presentation and rendering. Here again this have a lot to do with preference imho.
Does someone know of a free 'cloud' or something which enable public share of audio files?
So i would say flat and controlled from both loudspeakers and ER.
Camplo a variable acoustic for tracking room ( studio) is indeed very desirable in my view.
For a Control Room i fear this may be misleading.
Last edited:
Here's something that interest me but I can't seem to put a finger on it...
The way mid-range is praised in open baffle vs the use of open baffle mid within the studio (almost non existent?) . It is commonly praised for its neutrality, which in some way, should mean accuracy I think? Room energy is the main difference for a OB mid...studios tailor the room energy no matter what....so why no open baffle mids?
The way mid-range is praised in open baffle vs the use of open baffle mid within the studio (almost non existent?) . It is commonly praised for its neutrality, which in some way, should mean accuracy I think? Room energy is the main difference for a OB mid...studios tailor the room energy no matter what....so why no open baffle mids?
Last edited:
Hi,
Thank you all for the suggestions, i must confess this is the first time i will share something like that so not used to the differents service which offers this kind of options.
I'm working to organise the files as they will be a/b/x not to bias anyone and will upload them tomorow. Prepare headphones as they 'll be mandatory for the listening to be meaningfull.
Camplo,
If you consider ESL and planars as open back they are sometimes used. I once made a tracking session on ESL and there is at least one very talented ME which use this kind of loudspeakers ( Magnepans):
Barry Diament Audio
That said he is not the 'typical' ME: no compressor ever used. Not one you could blame for being part of 'loudness war'. There is an interesting interview on his view in the 'more' subsection, worth a read.
Thank you all for the suggestions, i must confess this is the first time i will share something like that so not used to the differents service which offers this kind of options.
I'm working to organise the files as they will be a/b/x not to bias anyone and will upload them tomorow. Prepare headphones as they 'll be mandatory for the listening to be meaningfull.
Camplo,
If you consider ESL and planars as open back they are sometimes used. I once made a tracking session on ESL and there is at least one very talented ME which use this kind of loudspeakers ( Magnepans):
Barry Diament Audio
That said he is not the 'typical' ME: no compressor ever used. Not one you could blame for being part of 'loudness war'. There is an interesting interview on his view in the 'more' subsection, worth a read.
There are not that many good dipole designs available to buy and none from the usual suspects that most professional studios would be willing to buy from. That is a practical reason why they are not there.
The other reason is that they do require some specific placement and room setup in order to work at their best. The dipole systems that I built sounded great in two rooms I had them in. Both were oddly shaped and allowed a good distance to the front wall to delay those reflections enough.
In a normal smaller rectangular living room they sounded nowhere near as good and on rock music yuck. I spent a lot of money on these and believed in the concept, I really wanted them to be the answer.
Mark100 made a comment earlier on that there is no perfect speaker for all genres. I think this is very true of dipoles. They are great for acoustic music where there is a lot of space in the recording or orchestral pieces where the added reflections are a benefit rather than a hindrance.
For rock and pop music particularly less well recorded music they are not the best solution.
As to dealing with the rear wave acoustically, David Smith once commented that it made no sense to do it that way when it is well known how to make a good box and stuff it so that the rear wave is not an issue.
Anyone who listens to a boxed speaker and finds it to sound boxy needs to build a better box 🙂
An important point to consider when listening to the views of others that have very strong opinions of certain types of speakers is what genres of music do they listen to and is there one they value over all others.
It took me a long time to realize that Linkwitz was only interested in classical music, all his designs and comments should be viewed through that lens.
If only a single style of speaker is to be used it will have to be more a jack of all trades for mastering unless the engineer only works within a narrow genre of music.
who is this david smith, do you have a link or more info to his way of dealing with the rear wave?
do you mean building boxes like wilson audio or taking care of the rear wave/the soundwaves within the box?
most speakers i have seen have such a small amount of damping material inside the cabinets that they seems to follow a less is more philosophy, in the sense that anything more then that will kill the sound. i find this a bit strange since i find empty boxes to sound like empty boxes, resonant and coloring
Regarding the use of dipole monitoring systems in mastering rooms, I can say it is certainly not common. I was in the studio design business for 20 years and was involved in the design of many mastering rooms (7 at the sadly defunct Sony Music Manhattan alone).
None incorporated dipole loudspeakers, although they were considered a possibility for future use by Hank Williams of MasterMix in Nashville. That is the reason for the diffusors behind the PMC BB5 monitors in the photo below. To be there in case there was a change to dipole monitors in the future. Mastering Engineers are very individualistic though, so I am almost certain that sometime, somewhere dipoles have been used in mastering. 🙂
None incorporated dipole loudspeakers, although they were considered a possibility for future use by Hank Williams of MasterMix in Nashville. That is the reason for the diffusors behind the PMC BB5 monitors in the photo below. To be there in case there was a change to dipole monitors in the future. Mastering Engineers are very individualistic though, so I am almost certain that sometime, somewhere dipoles have been used in mastering. 🙂
Last edited:
David Smith is loudspeaker designer worked for JBL and Snell amongst others maybe most famous for the expanding array designs posts here as speakerdave well worth checking his posts out through the forum search. I don't remember which thread it was in sorry. Fairly simple though deal with box resonances with bracing and material selection and use enough fibreglass in the enclosure to absorb the rest.
I don't think I would recommend anything done by Wilson as the right thing to do but they can sell speakers for crazy prices so.....
If it's a reflex box the stuffing is more complicated
that is cool, thank you
that sounds very wise but not how many seems to do it
🙂
yes, vented boxes are complicated, i find tall and narrow ones especially so