LOUD! 105 dbspl peak at 4m: 117dbspl at 1m, include 12 db headroom just in case:
RM Monitor
Hello RM-7 Mesa.
😀
Crossovers. I have no idea who wins...this guy or 48db LR.... this just throws my whole idea of where to put crossovers, out the windows, or one could borrow from the idea and place the epicenter elsewhere... I guess I'm just curious how this approach to crossover applies to time distortion, on the other side of the scale (steep crossover) the benefits are easily seen...other than lowered group delay for minimum phase...why would anyone want anything but a steep crossover?
Attachments
Last edited:
Half what... spl? That is still 124db @ 1m 😀
2 meters seems more 'sensible'. And if for mastering you rarely need as much spl as for tracking ( it is nice to listen to the instruments at their real life level so if there is a drummer involved you quickly need insane spl capability, even more if the artist have tinitus to cover! ).
Duelund approach to filter.
You open a can of worm with this kind of wording about low order filters! 😀
2 meters seems more 'sensible'. And if for mastering you rarely need as much spl as for tracking ( it is nice to listen to the instruments at their real life level so if there is a drummer involved you quickly need insane spl capability, even more if the artist have tinitus to cover! ).
Duelund approach to filter.
You open a can of worm with this kind of wording about low order filters! 😀
Last edited:
I'm just wondering what the sound quality pros are to low order crossovers is all (outside of GD for min phase)...objective not subjective.
In reply to titile...
Wouldn't such a speaker be one specially designed so that any music played upon it would be of limited dynamic range, yet sound as loud as possible, at any given volume level? 😀
Wouldn't such a speaker be one specially designed so that any music played upon it would be of limited dynamic range, yet sound as loud as possible, at any given volume level? 😀
Hold on what? The opposite. It sounds like you want to incorporate a compression and limiting into the product. That is the opposite of the goal. Why have you done this?
Last edited:
I first read Soldermizers post incorrectly, but the mistake inspired some truth.
Requirements of a mastering monitor, on a dynamic level, are to be placed high. Some might not agree, but a robust system is desirable, 105db at 4m is plenty right?
Requirements of a mastering monitor, on a dynamic level, are to be placed high. Some might not agree, but a robust system is desirable, 105db at 4m is plenty right?
Draw it out based on where you might have to lean or move based on adjusting equipment, that also depends on how constant the directivity is over what range. This was something I tried to point out in your two way thread that a very small area of good sound can be quite limiting.
Ribbons or AMT's often have narrower vertical directivity because the membrane is longer, the bigger the ribbon the more directive it is in the vertical plane, horizontally they are usually very wide. This is more of an issue if you will be changing vertical heights and moving out of the zone. Those HEDD speakers have quite small membranes so they will not be beam city as you put it.
High vertical directivity can be an advantage as it cuts down on floor and ceiling reflections. There was a study done which concluded that floor and ceiling reflections were the worst offenders for changing the timbre of sound lateral reflections being much less detrimental.
Here is an interesting design that was based off of ABEC modelling and a lot of trial and error. The aim was narrow vertical directivity and wider horizontal to cross with subs at 100Hz.
Pseudo-coaxial with narrow directivity (and Horbach-Keele filters)
You get it was a loudness war joke now though?
Perfect for a "WLS Monitor" (Mitchba's Wimpy Loud Sound) 🙂
Yes lol
That is awesome information. Might you have a link to this study?
About the high directivity of flat diaphragms, I've never the polar of such, that didn't beam in the top register. I wonder what the polar for a HEDD unit is. For beaming, if one part of spectrum is beaming, it might as well be the whole spectrum, you are either in the sweet spot or you are not...
That is awesome information. Might you have a link to this study?
About the high directivity of flat diaphragms, I've never the polar of such, that didn't beam in the top register. I wonder what the polar for a HEDD unit is. For beaming, if one part of spectrum is beaming, it might as well be the whole spectrum, you are either in the sweet spot or you are not...
No need a study: which of the room dimension is ( usually) the tinyest?
You've got your answer. (This is why you constantly see diffusor over sweetspot or 'clouds').
If you want to push further you have a crude approach to 'ray tracing' in the Bob Walker's BBC CID paper linked earlyer ( and in the document but it seems i'm repeating myself again and again... 😉 ).
I've got issue to load the audiofile i talked about to compare different set of ER. Does someone know what is the limit allowed for audio files upload in there? They are 60meg each which seems a bit heavy i fear...
Last edited:
Hi ya Camplo,
Have you heard many electrostats, or large planars?
If you haven't, my recommendation is try to do so.
It will shortcut alot of papers & studies re vertical dispersion, in a hurry 😉
Have you heard many electrostats, or large planars?
If you haven't, my recommendation is try to do so.
It will shortcut alot of papers & studies re vertical dispersion, in a hurry 😉
_ common sense solutions, for common problems. I thought it was some sophisticated psycho acoustical thing.
No. It is all about distance the wavefront have to travel (so the attenuation it'll see, the alpha sabine of material it'll encounter ( and angle of incidence) and then the travel distance for it to arrive at listening spot ( here again an attenuation).
Overall you'll quickly see absorbtion is not this effective given the distance involved and angle of incidence, so usually you see 'small' 2d schroeder diffuser tiles used* ( in checkerboard layout alterning orientation) instead of absorbtion, or 'clouds' to redirect ER.
The pro control room are usually misleading to look at as you only see the tip of the iceberg: there is usually a lot of space used above the visible ceiling: up to 1/3 of total room volume can be dedicated to absorption or basstraps ( or 'hangers' in the case of Hidley's room) and this is usually located above the ceilling.
You can guessestimate using this calculator:
SBIR calculator
But if you want to redirect the ER you'll have to draw and do a bit of crude 'ray tracing', no way around that.
* the depth of schroeder diffusor dictate their lower freq of effectiveness. In the case of the ceilling tiles they are usually effective to 1khz approx. The FTB concept of Jouanjean use a very deep 3d schroeder diffusor which protude into the space above the visible ceiling. The rest of the ceilling is usually absorbent and a big bass trap...
'Clouds' redirect the wavefront, same principle used in CID.
Overall you'll quickly see absorbtion is not this effective given the distance involved and angle of incidence, so usually you see 'small' 2d schroeder diffuser tiles used* ( in checkerboard layout alterning orientation) instead of absorbtion, or 'clouds' to redirect ER.
The pro control room are usually misleading to look at as you only see the tip of the iceberg: there is usually a lot of space used above the visible ceiling: up to 1/3 of total room volume can be dedicated to absorption or basstraps ( or 'hangers' in the case of Hidley's room) and this is usually located above the ceilling.
You can guessestimate using this calculator:
SBIR calculator
But if you want to redirect the ER you'll have to draw and do a bit of crude 'ray tracing', no way around that.
* the depth of schroeder diffusor dictate their lower freq of effectiveness. In the case of the ceilling tiles they are usually effective to 1khz approx. The FTB concept of Jouanjean use a very deep 3d schroeder diffusor which protude into the space above the visible ceiling. The rest of the ceilling is usually absorbent and a big bass trap...
'Clouds' redirect the wavefront, same principle used in CID.
Last edited:
I mentioned before that studio monitors *should* beam to avoid reflections.
I mentioned that you'd want to have the audio at the right spot - the mixing/mastering engineers spot - and NOT reflecting around the room.
Now you seem to be amazed by generic knowledge that audio reflection around the room - bouncing off the walls and floor/ceiling - is a bad thing.
This is exactly why we should have speaker builders building speakers for the right situation, without mastering engineers trying to interfere.
Speaker builders are / should be experts at getting the audio information at the right place, without adding / subtracting to the original signal.
That includes preventing unnecessary audio bouncing around the room - if we know where you'll be listening, we don't want to send sound in *other* directions that could reflect and muddy up the end result.
Have speaker builders build the perfect speakers, then have room treatment specialists pick up the local room problems - and only after THAT, when the result is clean and transparent, mastering engineers can use whatever EQ / mastering chain they like to master the signal.
Having mastering engineers telling speaker builders they want more "oomph" will only result in people hearing LESS "oomph" if they're not listening in the exact same setup.
Last edited:
- Can I get Dr. Earl Geddes to weigh on this? I don't want to misconstrue his comments to me, or his perspective.
Comment that a mastering engineer would never make #5002....lol
Fixed it
Maybe we can see who figured out they needed nuetral playback first? The video from Floyde is a few years old but Nuetral playback is a concept for mastering engineers well before he made that video.....right? Without knowing what a mastering engineer does, how could any ever figure what they needed...oh wait, the couldn't...how do we figure what they need...oh we talk to them...they can tell us about issues and goals and together we find a solution. We've moved pass that part of the discussion though...we have enough mastering engineers and loudspeaker designers in this thread that regardless what I think, what I proposed to be a healthy team to develop said product, has already materialized. As suggested by a few, what I described has already happened and, as well, I don't think any of the Loudspeaker design, only guys, are going to leave the thread because the mastering engineers are here lol
Last edited:
So are we aiming for a 2-4m solution? Sounds good to me...
I thought we would base everything around what every driver owns the midrange...
I brought up the ATC SM75-150 but sounds like we want more directivity than this...
I thought we would base everything around what every driver owns the midrange...
I brought up the ATC SM75-150 but sounds like we want more directivity than this...
Yes more or less for distance as an average if such thing exist.
What Pygmy said about directivity is not an absolute truth. Here again and with due respect it is largely a preference matter: most of the pics Camplo posted show different loudspeakers : Amphion, Dunlavy, B&W,...
Except the Amphion all others are not on the high directivity side ( the one with the Dunlavy is located in Amsterdam by the way and is a Jouanjean's room).
And here you can see what a recent Jouanjean room look alike:
YouTube
The mastering room i talked about previously located in Paris is almost exactly the same as these one. No high directivity loudspeakers in there but the acoustic is build around the Atc.
This is the key: a system composed of room and loudspeakers.
Here is the Nashville's Hidley mastering room i talked about: here RM7 Kinoshita and zero environnement room. Different approach, directive loudspeakers:
Tom Hidley - Non Environment Rooms – Acoustic Fields
Last edited: