If i understand you correctly the desk ( 'mixing board') is of great importance. It had been pointed by someone in the thread that they are huge reflector in front of you ( tracking/mixing studio) and they induce anomaly.
In big studio with huge analog desk it is a relevant issue: desk manufacturer had different approach to this: a common traits was to make bargraph relatively high as it is easier to read but 'shadow' ( in part) the console surface from MAINS ( and why the nearfield shoudn't be located on bargraph).
SSL pushed thing beyond that offering console which was 'open' in the lower part (except the 9000 range iirc). Ams/Neve did not. I once asked why to one guy specialised in them and he answered that it could help to mitigate floor bounce as this is an obstacle... different approach.
Anyway the situation changed with introduction of digital desk: brands are aware of the issue and this is why most studio dedicated desk are now around 1m2 surface ( more or less) to have lower acoustic imprint.
This is why all or most desks from mastering pictures you posted are 'small'.
T. Jouanjean even make some more transparent (acoustical) trolley for gear racks.
Search for 'noisia' studio ( Netherland Drum and Bass crew), there is article where they explain it.
Another way is to locate gear on side of room and have it 'fully open'. There is a room ( mastering obviously forget for tracking and mixing) like that in Paris.
Last edited:
True but it is relevant to the turn the topic has taken, hard to consider a speaker design without considering where it will be used.
Hmm, I have somewhat mixed feelings about this. I can see the logic behind moving a crossover out of the most sensitive hearing band and having one driver be responsible for the critical midrange frequencies. There seems two ways to do this with practical speakers, use a large waveguide with a tweeter that can go low enough, or use a smaller 3 to 4" midrange or full range driver that is not breaking up in the crossover region of interest.
The only speaker I have listened to with this setup was the LX521. This crossed the fullrange upper mid driver between 6 to 7K to a tweeter. In comparison to the previous Orion which had the crossover down at 1.6K on a Millenium tweeter. They sounded more similar than different to me and in practice I did not notice something that made me think the crossover was responsible.
For now I have a speaker with no crossover, 25 of the little drivers in a line. I like this speaker a lot but honestly I don't think it's the lack of crossover that makes me like it.
I intend to build two more speakers so I can experience them myself. One a Revel Salon 2 style tall tower with increasingly smaller drivers, and the other a Geddes ish M2 ish big waveguide and 15" woofer.
Then maybe I'll know what I like the most 🙂
Krivium,
Between my own designs, and hundreds of others, I have auditioned and reviewed designs using transducers crossed near every 1/3 octave ISO center frequency from 40 Hz to 12kHz.
The frequency of the crossover makes no difference in on-axis response of the design, as long as the transducers up to the task for the range and SPL required, with well-implemented crossovers carefully chosen for the drivers.
If one can measure or hear a problem on axis in the crossover region, it is a result of poor implementation, not the frequency of the crossover.
The vertical driver spacing and placement will affect off-axis vertical response in a multi-way system. Vertical spacing and frequency determine the angle where the path length difference results in cancelations.
Where those cancellations occur is important, as can be seen in the screen shots below, examples from:
Sound Wave Interference Applet
A 500 Hz crossover with 16.5” center to center driver (or driver/ horn) spacing would put the cancellation “suckout zone” pointed at the floor and ceiling, not much of a problem. At 1kHz, the difference between standing and sitting may put a listener’s ears in and out of the “zone”, at 2kHz, things get worse. The lobes can be directed up or down with DSP (or analog) processing.
Co-axial drivers and multiple entry horns can eliminate those spacing cancellation problems due to operating as virtual single point source.
Attachments
Thank you for your answer Art.
All you explain is why for my own preference i prefer coax design or layout which mimic them ( mtm or vertically aligned driver with a 'virtual' center driver). Your Syntripp, Danley's products, Peter Morris or Cask05 effort with Klipsh horn are all design i'm fascinated with and the underlying common philosophy shared may well be the definitive answer to me.
To bad i'm not good on carpentry so meanwhile i'll investigate furthermore 'classic' coax Tannoy as for the moment they fullfill my preference which may change with time and are easier to build...
Anyway, here is my own take on the xover freq.
For some times i contempled the loudspeakers i liked the most. I've heard a bunch of monitors when i worked in studio and as DJ i listened to a lot of them too. There is always something in common to them: they are almost always crossed between 1,5khz and 500hz for the mid high and sometimes with another way for the lows.
So either 2 ways or three ways with a span of xover in the range of 1,5/2 octave.
The one i prefered ( excluding coax) was a 2x12"+1,5" mtm xed at 800hz so more or less in the middle of the range. Then i remembered a chat with Pano about soundstage and width of stereo where he spoke about alarm siren at 1khz and the difficulty he had to localize the source at this particular freq.
My all time favourite monitor being Tannoy System15 DMTII where the xover is located at 1,1khz i started to wonder if their was a link there ( letting aside directivity and time coherence).
The first obvious thing about our ear sensitivity is the notch we have at 1khz. The second one is our ability to localize sound. We have a 'gray zone' from 800hz to 1,5khz approx where we shift from delta time to delta level in our ability to localize.
So i wonder if this is not one of the best place to locate a xover?
From the monitors i've heard and from my preference it seems to be true for me at least.
Of course there is other things at play but still...
Am i completly nut or may it be something to investigate? I wonder.
Fluid,
I would like to listen to Wesayso system. I've not heard a line array i liked until now but i must point i've only heard PA with this principle ( from big clusters in festivals to smaller one for small room). But i don't consider this as being adapted for something else than their target application and thus are compromised for critical listening in my view.
I'm a bit jealous of Mark100 or you as you have access to a lot of different principle at the same time to compare...
All you explain is why for my own preference i prefer coax design or layout which mimic them ( mtm or vertically aligned driver with a 'virtual' center driver). Your Syntripp, Danley's products, Peter Morris or Cask05 effort with Klipsh horn are all design i'm fascinated with and the underlying common philosophy shared may well be the definitive answer to me.
To bad i'm not good on carpentry so meanwhile i'll investigate furthermore 'classic' coax Tannoy as for the moment they fullfill my preference which may change with time and are easier to build...
Anyway, here is my own take on the xover freq.
For some times i contempled the loudspeakers i liked the most. I've heard a bunch of monitors when i worked in studio and as DJ i listened to a lot of them too. There is always something in common to them: they are almost always crossed between 1,5khz and 500hz for the mid high and sometimes with another way for the lows.
So either 2 ways or three ways with a span of xover in the range of 1,5/2 octave.
The one i prefered ( excluding coax) was a 2x12"+1,5" mtm xed at 800hz so more or less in the middle of the range. Then i remembered a chat with Pano about soundstage and width of stereo where he spoke about alarm siren at 1khz and the difficulty he had to localize the source at this particular freq.
My all time favourite monitor being Tannoy System15 DMTII where the xover is located at 1,1khz i started to wonder if their was a link there ( letting aside directivity and time coherence).
The first obvious thing about our ear sensitivity is the notch we have at 1khz. The second one is our ability to localize sound. We have a 'gray zone' from 800hz to 1,5khz approx where we shift from delta time to delta level in our ability to localize.
So i wonder if this is not one of the best place to locate a xover?
From the monitors i've heard and from my preference it seems to be true for me at least.
Of course there is other things at play but still...
Am i completly nut or may it be something to investigate? I wonder.
Fluid,
I would like to listen to Wesayso system. I've not heard a line array i liked until now but i must point i've only heard PA with this principle ( from big clusters in festivals to smaller one for small room). But i don't consider this as being adapted for something else than their target application and thus are compromised for critical listening in my view.
I'm a bit jealous of Mark100 or you as you have access to a lot of different principle at the same time to compare...
Last edited:
My thoughts on crossover, I'm simple, crossover equal problems, keep problems out of the midrange, and don't separate vocal range....thats a broad blade I guess.
If I where to look at the equal loudness contour I can see the "700-7000hz" as a resonance in the human ear....1.5khz to 6khz being very sensitive. It make sense to me to avoid all possible flaws inducing devices int these areas of sensitivity.
I'm pushing the theory though, its just nice to know how every one feels as we move forward.
What about the mid range? The most important range. What would you trust your mastering monitors to? I'm sort of a SM75-150 fan. Put that in a wave guide maybe?
I like coaxial solutions too, I've been gawking over the pics of the Tannoy System15 DMTII that was brought up. I found some comments on gearslutz, comments mostly suggested very critical/honest, lacking sub bass and air....which sounds about right looking at them. So I know we get into this argument about what we can hear or can't hear above 10khz but lets keep 19khz-20khz minimum, in the target.
I'm also sold on large midranges...12"-15"....
Whos the most critical?
If I where to look at the equal loudness contour I can see the "700-7000hz" as a resonance in the human ear....1.5khz to 6khz being very sensitive. It make sense to me to avoid all possible flaws inducing devices int these areas of sensitivity.
I'm pushing the theory though, its just nice to know how every one feels as we move forward.
What about the mid range? The most important range. What would you trust your mastering monitors to? I'm sort of a SM75-150 fan. Put that in a wave guide maybe?
I like coaxial solutions too, I've been gawking over the pics of the Tannoy System15 DMTII that was brought up. I found some comments on gearslutz, comments mostly suggested very critical/honest, lacking sub bass and air....which sounds about right looking at them. So I know we get into this argument about what we can hear or can't hear above 10khz but lets keep 19khz-20khz minimum, in the target.
I'm also sold on large midranges...12"-15"....
Whos the most critical?
Last edited:
thank you for the simulation. unfortunately i have the speaker setup at the other orientation, with speaker back wall to the long wall. i should consider to a change
Thats a simplification yes. But it resume the appeal the full range's afficionados have to their driver preference.
I think like Art however: filter if smartly implemented have not this much of an impact and solve the issues full range gives. It enable to consider each range with it's own needs and concerns too and as pointed by Art can even help to mitigate some detrimentals colateral effects. Eg Kinoshita's RM-7 MTM layout, driver choice and usual position in control rooms help mitigate floor bounce and ceiling reflection using lobing in the 'right' freq range. This come to price though as the power response is not as nice as other solution which is at turns mitigate by acoustic treatment and conditions seen in a control room ( the desk obstacle).
Speech inteligibility range is more 300hz/6khz imho. It embed the human voice lowest first harmonic range in it ( we are able to reconstruct the missing fondemental by comparing the ratio of harmonics between them: Philips had a technology like that for consumer tiny loudspeakers 20 years ago, and most 'big bass' treatment rely on that).
I don't see a resonance but a range in which we are specialized thanks to evolution. The peak of sensitivity is located right where a baby scream is at: it help protect the specie. The rest of the range is where the communication between us stand, where most formant are localized too. There is reason why we aren't this good at azimuth location too as our predator was more likely to be around us than above...
But yeah this range is the most important ( all are in my view though).
I don't know if it could be possible to use waveguide on them. I'm surprised as they are almost the total opposite of the path you've choosen for your own design! You'll have a very different rendering from my experience with both ( i lived with SCM 110A as my mains for 2 years in a studio i was resident engineer).
This is fair in my view. They are definetely far from perfect: they cut at 38hz and are directive and often people find they lack air yes and one of the reason Tannoy have supertweet on offer. Though their pro overcome their cons to me.
Difficult to say as i think it may change with age. At the moment i'm sold on large membrane area and hi efficiency for mid or horn loaded. Wasn't this much when younger: i prefered smaller drivers...
Last edited:
i do not understand this concept, the distance that the calculator shows, is that the distance from the speaker or from the boundary?
putting a loudspeaker near the wall, will this not excite room resonances at its max? art noxon at asc rec'd in a paper that a loudspeaker should be placed close to 25% into the room for less room interaction. i think a cardiod would be the best speaker for less room interaction, or a dipole?
This is the distance within the room where you have 50% direct sound 50% 'reverb' sound ( decay is more true than reverb).
In other words this is the distance between source and you. If you follow the equilateral triangle rule it is the distance of sides to the apex.
It is location dependant but yes corner locating speaker as well as inwall as it own set of things to take into account.
Those rule of thumb are what they are and are often linked to a type of room shape so you need to be careful with them.
I don't agree dipole have less room interaction, they have a lot of room interaction! That said the outcome gives a kind of presentation which may appeal to some ( they add ambience which is great with acoustic material in my view not for other things in my own preference).
Take a look there for a review of two different approach from someone who lived with them at home ( i've experienced both too and this is inline with what i feel):
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/330741-preference-direct-radiators-7.html#post5629108
Last edited:
I don't know Turk. It is dependent from preference i would say.
I'm sold on in wall as to me this solve so many issues and if well implemented this is the less offending preference to me.
Most ME use freestanding though.
Hidley and Jouanjean seems to have a preference for inwall ( most acousticians have this prefrence from my experience). Jouanjean offer both option but this is often because the engineer insist on a reference of loudspeaker. In that case he implement an RFZ through Controlled Image Design principle though but it can't be as effective as the same principle used with inwall.
I think RFZ is the important point. And the ER design 🙂 level and arriving time): it dramatically change the presentation ime.
I'm sold on in wall as to me this solve so many issues and if well implemented this is the less offending preference to me.
Most ME use freestanding though.
Hidley and Jouanjean seems to have a preference for inwall ( most acousticians have this prefrence from my experience). Jouanjean offer both option but this is often because the engineer insist on a reference of loudspeaker. In that case he implement an RFZ through Controlled Image Design principle though but it can't be as effective as the same principle used with inwall.
I think RFZ is the important point. And the ER design 🙂 level and arriving time): it dramatically change the presentation ime.
I certainly prefer my studio with standalone monitors. Then subs to place along a 1xPi boundary (against a wall, but not a corner.) Speakers need to be strong too, so you can mount them where-ever necessary.
When I'm mastering a track, I'm not always in the perfect spot. This is forgiven by my speakers not being a laser beam. Laser beams aren't exactly perfect either. Do you know how tiring it is to sit in the exact same position day in day out?
When I'm mastering a track, I'm not always in the perfect spot. This is forgiven by my speakers not being a laser beam. Laser beams aren't exactly perfect either. Do you know how tiring it is to sit in the exact same position day in day out?
Oh yes! And add to this overdamped room ( no real direct sunlight and a lacking confidence artist) and i've got claustrophobia! Experienced that a lot of time...
What do you dislike in the inwall presentation Humbledeer?
From my experience this is more related to ER 'design' than in wall about presentation difference.
Rastafarian Free Zone sound like a Babylonian conspiracy to me: the paradise of babylon's juice ( coca cola) drinkers as said a rasta friend to me one night! Couldn't stop laughing at it! Jah rastafary bro! 😀
RFZ: Reflection Free Zone.,... not to be confused with reflexion free zone! 😉
Last edited:
To my knowledge no.
Jouanjean advocate for semi live polarized room Hidley for ultra dead room ( zero environment) highly polarized room ( only front wall is reflecting).Both are some kind of extreme and the majority must be between that i suppose (not all can afford the cost of acoustician like that and prefer to invest in gear right or wrong).
Jouanjean advocate for semi live polarized room Hidley for ultra dead room ( zero environment) highly polarized room ( only front wall is reflecting).Both are some kind of extreme and the majority must be between that i suppose (not all can afford the cost of acoustician like that and prefer to invest in gear right or wrong).
Last edited: