AudioCircle
Audio/Video Gear and Systems => The Acoustics Circle => Topic started by: Big Red Machine on 13 Aug 2010, 12:51 pm
-
And is it giving more realistic sound, as in room filling?
-
And is it giving more realistic sound, as in room filling?
I do and I get better decay and twinkle in my music like in a venue with live acoustics.
Addendum: This is only after putting up a large diffuser at the back wall which really does most of the heavy lifting IMHO.
-
And is it giving more realistic sound, as in room filling?
I don't currently do this (I use Realtraps RFZ's at the first side reflection point), but I am considering putting up diffusion at my first reflection point on my ceiling. A friend recently did this and I like the impact it is having.
Can one of our acoustics gurus comment on ceiling diffusion? Does the the type of speaker impact its effectiveness?
BTW, I do use diffusion at the back of the room (behind me) and highly recommend it.
George
-
I'm asking a little early because I have significantly increased my diffusion in the room but have only spent an hour listening half-critically. But now I have diffusors on each side wall, behind the speakers, overhead, behind me on the thick absorber, and to the back sidewalls.
What I initially noticed was a room filling effect and an almost invisible soundstage width on the choruses but I still had excellent imaging on vocals and instrumentals.
Now I could have been in a bad way that one time but I also seemed to get a small headache as if it was too bright even though the volume was lower than I usually listen at. Obviously I need to spend more time, but I am happy about the spaciousness but worried about the brightness. Probably need to find the balance.
One thing that happened that never happened before was bass notes were more full bodied and some of them made me turn my head as they seemed to surround me which was pretty cool.
-
Pete, have you removed any absorption from your room with the addition of diffusers?
Try a thin blanket on the side diffusers for brightness, maybe.
-
Diffusion at the ceiling points can be a really nice thing that will increase spaciousness without overly impacting imaging precision.
Whether or not it works well for you on the side walls will depend on whether you already have enough absorption to have the decay times balanced or not and whether the perceived increase in soundstage width is worth the tradeoff if you don't have the decay times right.
As for which speakers, if you have something that's relatively beamy vertically or has 'controlled vertical dispersion' like a line array, then it may not be as much benefit on the ceiling.
Bryan
-
would ceiling diffusion be as necessary/effective with a tall ceiling vs a lower ceiling? My room averages about 12' with 14' peaks.
thanks
Tony
-
Hey Tony! I wouldn't think ceiling heights that high would see much benefit to your ears but Bryan will embarrass any answer I come up with anyway!
-
LOL. Not hardly Pete. Not my game.
My personal preference is absorption for lower ceilings, diffusion for higher ceilings with the caveat that it's still speaker and room dependent. Diffusion on the ceiling can also help when you have hard floor surfaces and not just at reflection points. If you want the illusion of more height (assuming a non-dipole/bipole speaker) is to use diffusion on other walls of the room besides the front and orient the fins horizontally so you induce more later reflections coming from the ceiling to trick the ear/brain into thinking the ceiling is higher.
The biggest problem with diffusion in lower ceilings is purely a matter of headroom. To get a proper diffuser to function down to say around 500Hz, you're looking at something that's around 6" thick. That's a tough sell to a lot of people who have 8' or less ceiling height (especially if you're as tall as Pete is!)
Bryan
-
Yep, I got low drop ceiling. So the absorption tiles were the way to go for me and I am not even tall. :thumb:
-
Another issue is that you're closer to the diffuser and therefore the diffusion isn't as diffuse, if that makes sense. For instance, my room has about a 7'8" ceiling, which is a full 4-6 feet shorter than Tony's room. If you think of diffusion as a cone emanating from a single point, Tony is going to be at a location much farther from that point, meaning that the sound will be more diffuse. For me, I'll be much closer to that point, meaning that the diffusion will be not as effective or ineffective.
Or is the cone so big it doesn't matter?
-
Over your head or behind you is a line that's parallel to the room dimensions. For reflection points, even with a low ceiling, you're looking at more of an angled plain to make it easier to visualize. That straight line distance from ears moving both forward and up is probably still far enough to be very usable.
Bryan
-
How do you determine where to place the diffuser on the ceiling? Using the mirror trick? (Sit in your normal spot and have a helper move the mirror on the ceiling until you can see the tweeters/midrange of the speakers.)
-
Use the mirror on the floor, then just translate the point to the ceiling. If you have an 8 ft. ceiling and typical height speakers you won't be far off - less than a foot. Or you could just do the math.
-
Here is the math. For ceiling or floor just turn pic on it's side. :)
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=4675)
-
Hmmm....That makes sense because if x2=x1, then the reflection point would be y/2, which is correct. I'll have to work out the rest of the math some other time.
-
Here is the math. For ceiling or floor just turn pic on it's side. :)
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=4675)
I recognize that diagram. :wink:
George
-
If you listen near-field and you have several vertical placements of drivers on your speakers, you might as well treat the whole ceiling between the speakers and you, which is not that much if you are using 2'x4' ceiling tiles.
-
Correct. But, if your diffuser is only a couple inches thick, it's not going to do much below say a couple kHz so only the tweeter may be applicable. If it's a deeper diffuser, then you'd want to address the midrange also. As you get lower, the sound spreads more and acts less like a ray so there would be a larger area to cover.
Bryan
-
If your tweet/mid is the same height as your ear, ceiling first reflection point should be half the distance to the speaker.
should the "baffles" of a diffuser be perpendicular to your line of sight or parallel?
-
I'll add that I added Prime 53's with 2" 703 behind to each side wall. Lotsa dispersion. And they're more than 12" deep.
-
I recognize that diagram. :wink:
George
:D. Yes, in full disclosure that diagram is from Ethans great Realtraps website.
-
If your tweet/mid is the same height as your ear, ceiling first reflection point should be half the distance to the speaker.
should the "baffles" of a diffuser be perpendicular to your line of sight or parallel?
Depends on how you primarily how you want to scatter it.
Bryan
-
My small room is 11'w x 17'L x 7'h with my speakers setup on the narrow width. I use Furutech diffusion panels at my 1st reflection points on both my walls and ceiling. I feel it has helped expand my soundstage depth greatly. I also use Eighth Nerve panels on all my ceiling & wall corner joints. My roon definitely doesn't sound like either a small room or an acoustically dead room. :D
If I had a large room or a room with high ceilings, I would have probably looked more into absorption at the 1st reflection points and maybe diffusion on the front wall with the extra room. Can't really say tho as I've never been there. :lol:
Cheers,
Robin
-
Pete,
you got a pic of those diffusers?....your gallery was a little intimidating to search :P
did you buy or diy?
-
I'm using diffusion on the side walls, and yes, I like it more than absorption or bare walls. I never thought that they made the sound "brighter", maybe more lively and more dynamic, but not brighter.
Diffusers need to be quite deep to reach the lower octaves, but shallow ones are better than not having any at all. I chose diffusers that are made of wood because I think that wood sounds better than plastic or other man made materials. Everything has a sound to it, and diffusers do too. I know I'll probably get schooled for that comment, but I thought I would throw it in there anyway. (The number you have dialed is no longer in service, please check your white papers and dial again. :oops:.)
I don't know if I will ever get around to treating the ceilings. Maybe someday . . .
-
LOL. Not hardly Pete. Not my game.
My personal preference is absorption for lower ceilings, diffusion for higher ceilings with the caveat that it's still speaker and room dependent. Diffusion on the ceiling can also help when you have hard floor surfaces and not just at reflection points. If you want the illusion of more height (assuming a non-dipole/bipole speaker) is to use diffusion on other walls of the room besides the front and orient the fins horizontally so you induce more later reflections coming from the ceiling to trick the ear/brain into thinking the ceiling is higher.
The biggest problem with diffusion in lower ceilings is purely a matter of headroom. To get a proper diffuser to function down to say around 500Hz, you're looking at something that's around 6" thick. That's a tough sell to a lot of people who have 8' or less ceiling height (especially if you're as tall as Pete is!)
Bryan
thanks for the insite ;)
-
Pete,
you got a pic of those diffusers?....your gallery was a little intimidating to search :P
did you buy or diy?
Used QRdude and went a little crazy.
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=33964)
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=33965)
-
Pete, have you done a rta of your room? It would be interesting to see the plots of your favorite absorption era and plots as you add more diffusion.
-
Pete, have you done a rta of your room? It would be interesting to see the plots of your favorite absorption era and plots as you add more diffusion.
I don't have the gear to do it and not sure I could do it properly anyway.
Here's a construction photo of the back of one unit. I actually like the sound of these. The bass extends back behind me and the soundstage is wall to wall now.
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=33993)
-
thanks for the info. I think diffusion is my next step.
-
I'm sure I could have achieved the same results with a smaller unit but I just chose the 53 because it fit the space. I should have made a 47 or smaller and split them in half for easy handling.
I'll post a thread with the construction photos.
-
I was just reading a old review of a 2005/6 Toole talk. He points out that you should not use too small diffusion units.
This has led to Toole’s recommendation that too many or too few reflections can be a problem. In particular, acoustic absorption, diffusion, and reflection must be broadband, ideally starting below 200Hz. He pointed out that the typical 1˝ or 2˝ sound panel most often affixed to walls works only at relatively high frequencies, and acts to effectively turn down the tweeter with no effect on the midrange or upper bass, thus unbalancing the sound.
-
I didn't mean a Prime 7, I meant a 37 or 47 versus a 53. :P
-
Hey..newbie question here..Big Red doesn't that area (shown directly under the number 5) make a kind of echo chamber, not the right words but isn't the space in there conducive to slap back echo of some sort..I'm curious as I initially thought diffusion was to totally break up the sound waves, I guess I'm thinking standing waves in that section....
-
Hey..newbie question here..Big Red doesn't that area (shown directly under the number 5) make a kind of echo chamber, not the right words but isn't the space in there conducive to slap back echo of some sort..I'm curious as I initially thought diffusion was to totally break up the sound waves, I guess I'm thinking standing waves in that section....
My guess is that if area 5 is centered between the speakers the first sound to arrive will be at an angle from the speaker and hit 2-3 sides before it exits back into the room.
-
And different frequencies will interact with the various widths in different ways. Part of a QRD does in fact cause some 'absorption' via cancellations in the wells.
Another way to build this would be to split it in the middle and move one end around so the deeper portion in the middle is now half on each end.
Bryan
-
Can one of our acoustics gurus comment on ceiling diffusion? Does the the type of speaker impact its effectiveness?
Interesting thread, and sorry to miss this while I was away on vacation for a few days. :thumb:
I don't have too much to add at this late date, but I encourage people to set up a controlled test if possible, to fairly compare absorption versus diffusion. I haven't done that for the ceiling reflection points in my living room HT because it's a pain with my high angled ceiling. But I did do a carefully controlled test at the side-walls, and absorption won there handily.
I assume that speakers having a narrow dispersion pattern are affected less by either absorption or diffusion. And of course speaker dispersion varies both horizontally and vertically. Speakers that don't send very much sound upward probably don't need anything on the ceiling.
--Ethan
-
Interesting thread, and sorry to miss this while I was away on vacation for a few days. :thumb:
I don't have too much to add at this late date, but I encourage people to set up a controlled test if possible, to fairly compare absorption versus diffusion. I haven't done that for the ceiling reflection points in my living room HT because it's a pain with my high angled ceiling. But I did do a carefully controlled test at the side-walls, and absorption won there handily.
I assume that speakers having a narrow dispersion pattern are affected less by either absorption or diffusion. And of course speaker dispersion varies both horizontally and vertically. Speakers that don't send very much sound upward probably don't need anything on the ceiling.
--Ethan
Hello Ethan,
I don't know how you controlled your experiment but I am sure you used good empirical method for your test and that your result is valid. But is it possible that other rooms can give different test result? My personal observation (without measurement) is that not much changed in terms of overall sound stage depth or width when I went from your Micro panels to SRL diffusers on the side walls. The initial placement of a diffuser on the back wall paid huge dividend in terms of establishing a solid sound stage with big depth. The addition on the first reflection points on the side wall did not add anything.
The difference is in the overall sound of music in the room. I went with diffuser on the side wall to reduce refractive/reflective interference without sapping the overall tonality. I think I get better decay characteristics with diffusers. This may have something to do with the fact that I like the sound of acoustic instruments (including voice) in acoustically lively venues. I don't like acoustic music in outdoor venues as much. So I have a preference for certain interactive room sound. I like tones to decay "naturally" and too much absorption, to me, deadens the lingering harmonics too quickly. I am only saying this after I have filled the room with 10 of your absorbers and 4 from GIK. I have also put acoustic tiles (absorption) on the drop ceiling (doubled on the ceiling reflection points) and stuffed the corners and edges above the ceiling with fiberglass batting.
-
Hello Ethan,
I don't know how you controlled your experiment but I am sure you used good empirical method for your test and that your result is valid. But is it possible that other rooms can give different test result? My personal observation (without measurement) is that not much changed in terms of overall sound stage depth or width when I went from your Micro panels to SRL diffusers on the side walls. The initial placement of a diffuser on the back wall paid huge dividend in terms of establishing a solid sound stage with big depth. The addition on the first reflection points on the side wall did not add anything.
The difference is in the overall sound of music in the room. I went with diffuser on the side wall to reduce refractive interference without sapping the overall tonality. I think I get better decay characteristics with diffusers. This may have something to do with the fact that I like the sound of acoustic instruments (including voice) in acoustically lively venues. I don't like acoustic music in outdoor venues as much. I like tones to decay "naturally" and too much absorption, to me, deadens the lingering harmonics too quickly. I am only saying this after I have filled the room with 10 of your absorbers and 4 from GIK. I have also put acoustic tiles (absorption) on the drop ceiling (doubled on the ceiling reflection points) and stuffed the corners and edges above the ceiling with fiberglass batting.
I'm not sure a test using the Micro traps on the sidewalls versus diffusion would be that valid. I'd use at least the normal traps, as these absorb more over the entire frequency range.
I definitely think that one could over damp a room.
I'd love to compare diffusion versus absorption. Ethan, care to let me borrow some diffusers? ;-)
-
Interesting thread, and sorry to miss this while I was away on vacation for a few days. :thumb:
I don't have too much to add at this late date, but I encourage people to set up a controlled test if possible, to fairly compare absorption versus diffusion. I haven't done that for the ceiling reflection points in my living room HT because it's a pain with my high angled ceiling. But I did do a carefully controlled test at the side-walls, and absorption won there handily.
I assume that speakers having a narrow dispersion pattern are affected less by either absorption or diffusion. And of course speaker dispersion varies both horizontally and vertically. Speakers that don't send very much sound upward probably don't need anything on the ceiling.
--Ethan
I don't have any measurable data supporting this assertion, but I am guessing that my speakers (Vandy 5A's) would benefit from something on the ceiling. At the last few shows, Richard Vandersteen brought room treatments for all the first reflection points and used diffusion on the ceiling.
George
-
I don't have any measurable data supporting this assertion, but I am guessing that my speakers (Vandy 5A's) would benefit from something on the ceiling. At the last few shows, Richard Vandersteen brought room treatments for all the first reflection points and used diffusion on the ceiling.
George
George, you could probably do a test, since you have diffusion already behind you. Take those diffusive elements out of the room and listen for a while. Then put one of the diffusive elements "on" the ceiling and see what the results are. The hardest part will be figuring out how to get the diffusive elements up there temporarily.
I don't have any diffusive elements to test, and my room is still under construction (drywall in, but still needs to be painted and the wainscoting put in).
-
I haven't moved the Gik diffusers behind me or just back of my head on the side walls. I brought the RT Near Diffusors up behind the speakers in place of absorber panels and added the side diffusors and for right now, just 2 Auralex T'fussors overhead.
Without measurements before and after I can't show anything visually, but I am very happy I did this. As woodsyi mentioned, the decay is much longer and was something I never knew I missed. I wouldn't say my room was overdamped and even now the bass is reasonably trapped but could stand some more as you walk around the perimeter.
My soundstage is deeper than I ever had in the room and is wall-to-wall wide now. The music fills the room as I would expect a live venue to fill and I have bass from behind me now in some tunes. I've been running the SB on Random to rediscover my music files. :smoke:
-
George, you could probably do a test, since you have diffusion already behind you. Take those diffusive elements out of the room and listen for a while. Then put one of the diffusive elements "on" the ceiling and see what the results are. The hardest part will be figuring out how to get the diffusive elements up there temporarily.
I don't have any diffusive elements to test, and my room is still under construction (drywall in, but still needs to be painted and the wainscoting put in).
Not sure if you have seen the size of the Realtraps Diffusors, but they are quite big (24x48x6 and 26 lbs) and definitely not something to just take down from the current location and temporarily relocate them to the ceiling.
Here is a picture of them in my room:
(http://realtraps.com/cust_hoenninger3.jpg)
George
-
But is it possible that other rooms can give different test result?
Sure! I'm very open about explaining that my few tests were done in small rooms. One was my living room which is 25 feet front to back by 16 feet wide. The other was a smaller room, 17 feet long by 11.5 wide. The difference was so obvious, with absorption winning by a landslide, I'm always surprised when people say they prefer diffusion. But maybe their room is wider, and of course personal taste is a factor.
--Ethan
-
Ethan, care to let me borrow some diffusers? ;-)
That's not out of the question, and you're always welcome to visit me here to compare absorption versus diffusion. I just got a new huge (159 inches) video screen and it's awesome.
--Ethan
-
Uh-oh. You've gotten sucked into the HT thing Ethan. It's an even bigger money hole than audio sometimes :lol:
Bryan
-
Not sure if you have seen the size of the Realtraps Diffusors, but they are quite big (24x48x6 and 26 lbs) and definitely not something to just take down from the current location and temporarily relocate them to the ceiling.
Here is a picture of them in my room:
(http://realtraps.com/cust_hoenninger3.jpg)
George
George,
How are those held up?
I think two adults could easily hold a 26 pound diffuser up for a test. (As an aside, does 26 pounds seem heavy to you? As someone who is currently lifting 4x8 sheets of 5/8 inch, fire rated drywall, 26 pounds would be great to hold up instead. With two people, that's 13 pounds per person. I think my drill is heavier than that, and I hold it up for many minutes.) Getting them down might be a problem, obviously. And, you should test the system with the two adults in the room before putting up the diffuser for a more accurate test.
-
That's not out of the question, and you're always welcome to visit me here to compare absorption versus diffusion. I just got a new huge (159 inches) video screen and it's awesome.
--Ethan
159 inches? I'm waiting to put up my 92 inch screen. 159 must be very immersive.
-
Uh-oh. You've gotten sucked into the HT thing Ethan. It's an even bigger money hole than audio sometimes :lol:
I've had a "video" setup for years. I started with a 65-inch Mitsubishi RPTV many years ago, which I still have (behind the screen) that still works great for watching TV and older low-res DVDs. Then a year ago I got a 110-inch screen and Mitsubishi projector and Blu-ray player. I was sure 110 inches would be huge! Alas, for an entire year Elli and I fantasized about a much larger screen. So a month ago I sold the 110" screen and got this monster that's 12 feet wide:
(http://www.ethanwiner.com/living_room.jpg)
Our couch is ten feet from the screen, so it's like being at an IMAX theater. "Immersive" is an understatement. :lol:
--Ethan
-
Sure! I'm very open about explaining that my few tests were done in small rooms. One was my living room which is 25 feet front to back by 16 feet wide. The other was a smaller room, 17 feet long by 11.5 wide. The difference was so obvious, with absorption winning by a landslide, I'm always surprised when people say they prefer diffusion. But maybe their room is wider, and of course personal taste is a factor.
--Ethan
Hi Ethan,
I think the "key" word is PREFER.
Much of the time, room treatments are about "shaping" the sound to a "preference" and not about creating an acoustic absolute of the original event or recording. And many times there IS no absolute sound.
I too find diffusion a strange practice for HT, but if the goal is to shape and create a sonic that the owner likes or prefers, it is, or can be successful to that application.
And Bravo on the 159" screen. I have a 120" and couldn't imagine going smaller for my viewing "preferences" (I sit 5-8th row center when in theaters to be "IN" the film, not outside looking in)
So HT has more lattitude in many ways than the sonic engineering of a 2 channel event where "any" room related distortion could be considered an impingement of the the absolute.
Even the speaker types often used show this. Dipoles, bipoles, Horizontal Centers, wall mountings, differing heights, non-equidistant placements, all cause changes to the sound produced, and sometimes "prefered".
Makes the hobby "personal", much like customizing your auto, house, wardrobe or whatever.
-
^^^ Absolutely agree on this being all about preference John. Hey, that's what tone controls are for too. :D
--Ethan
-
I've had a "video" setup for years. I started with a 65-inch Mitsubishi RPTV many years ago, which I still have (behind the screen) that still works great for watching TV and older low-res DVDs. Then a year ago I got a 110-inch screen and Mitsubishi projector and Blu-ray player. I was sure 110 inches would be huge! Alas, for an entire year Elli and I fantasized about a much larger screen. So a month ago I sold the 110" screen and got this monster that's 12 feet wide:
(http://www.ethanwiner.com/living_room.jpg)
Our couch is ten feet from the screen, so it's like being at an IMAX theater. "Immersive" is an understatement. :lol:
--Ethan
Can you tell us what equiptment you use :thumb:
-
^^^ This is not the first time someone has asked. I should make a web page somewhere detailing everything. I recorded a nice walk-around video of the current setup last week, so maybe I'll make a formal video. In the mean time:
The video is a little complicated because I have a 65-inch Mitsubishi Rear Projection TV as well as the new 159-inch projector screen with Mitsubishi projector. (We kept the TV for watching standard definition TV at a more practical size.) My receiver switches video to the RPTV as well as all audio, and a separate HDMI switch handles the projector video.
I have a consumer type Pioneer receiver that routes the sound from all the devices: Cable box, Blu-ray player, 5.1 sound card on my Dell laptop, and an old VHS recorder. I use the digital audio outputs from the cable box and Blu-ray player, and both digital (stereo) and analog (5.1) from the laptop which has a Presonus FireBOX sound card. I've done a few surround mixes with my laptop, which is why I bought the FireBOX rather than a regular stereo sound card. As with all modern receivers, this one decodes Dolby and DTS, and does bass management splitting the audio between the five main speakers and subwoofer.
The sub is a killer. It's an SVS PB12-Ultra/2 which has twin 12-inch drivers and can be tuned to go down to 16 Hz. I have it set for 18 Hz as the -3 dB point because that gives a little more overall output level yet is still plenty low. The main speakers are Mackie 624s, sold mostly as pro studio monitors. They're bookshelf size with a 49 Hz -3 dB point, but that's plenty low when used with a sub.
There are 55 various RealTraps panels. Most are bass traps, but five are mid/high frequency absorbers at reflection points, and there are four diffusors on the rear wall. Yeah, I really should make a video showing all of this. :lol:
--Ethan
-
And everyone should have a wife as tolerant as yours Ethan. :thumb:
Bryan
-
I met my wife (in 1980) when she was one of my recording students. So she enjoys high quality sound as much as I do. The good news is more people these days have dedicated rooms, where they can do whatever they want without spouse objections. Versus my HT which is also our living room.
--Ethan
-
For a man of your caliper, I am glad and suprised that you have a very down to earth and average everyday system :thumb:
-
For a man of your caliper....:thumb:
You might not have meant this but it's a nice miss..being that Ethan is all about measurements. :)
-
I personally like combination absorber / diffuser products at the first sidewall reflection points. Either RPG BAD, BAD Arc, or one of the similar products.
A similar effect can also be realized through interleaving pieces of absorption with the reflective wall surface by using 6" thick strips of absorber or small squares.
-
I personally like combination absorber / diffuser products at the first sidewall reflection points. Either RPG BAD, BAD Arc, or one of the similar products.
A similar effect can also be realized through interleaving pieces of absorption with the reflective wall surface by using 6" thick strips of absorber or small squares.
I concur with this. We implemented BAD ARC's on the side walls when we upgraded my room and it is an excellent product.
-
That we did Art!
It is (use of diffusion on first reflection points) so dependent on all room/system factors. I personally am a big fan of diffusive ceiling (in proper context)...the added sense of room heightvolume and clarity in the 800Hz to 2KHz range can be very enjoyable.
Nylar, I too love the use of aborption/reflection to create controlled yet "open" lateral reflection...grea description also, nicely stated!
A big concern with lateral reflections is room ring (to me) moreso than flutter echos. Room ring is a midrange distortion (usually 400Hz to 1200Hz) between parallel surfaces that tends to be most audible between sidewalls (16' width or less typically) around the listener. Absorption can often be the best option in this case. The wider the room, the greater the choices.
In Art's room, the 20'+(ish) width allowed the BAD Arc's to be located with less critical emphasis on symmetry and more emphasis on how the panels worked between the two walls as a single system.
-
Jeff
Its Nyal, not Nylar :roll:
No problems :D
-
Nyal,
My apologies...so sorry. I appreciate your understanding.
-
No problems. I am totally used to being called Nigel, Niall, Kyle, Lyle and many other things. I fact sometimes I call myself Tom, no one get's that one wrong!
-
^^^ Thanks for clarifying, Miles. :D
-
No problems. I am totally used to being called Nigel, Niall, Kyle, Lyle and many other things. I fact sometimes I call myself Tom, no one get's that one wrong!
You're probably right, no one should get Tim wrong.... :o
-
That we did Art!
It is (use of diffusion on first reflection points) so dependent on all room/system factors. I personally am a big fan of diffusive ceiling (in proper context)...the added sense of room heightvolume and clarity in the 800Hz to 2KHz range can be very enjoyable.
Nylar, I too love the use of aborption/reflection to create controlled yet "open" lateral reflection...grea description also, nicely stated!
..go reading that article, describing a simple model of the sonic field:
http://www.syntheticwave.de/Sound%20and%20Room.htm
That agrees your opinion, we have to aviod wrong first reflections. Later reverberation much less disturbing.
H.
-
..go reading that article, describing a simple model of the sonic field:
http://www.syntheticwave.de/Sound%20and%20Room.htm
That agrees your opinion, we have to aviod wrong first reflections. Later reverberation much less disturbing.
H.
Interesting article and thanks for pointing it out.
I find the following quotes relevant:
In the most cases, the goal of playback is no longer the reproduction of a live event; the recordings are much more a product of art.
The positions in stereo panorama became specify by means of the pan- pot during post- editing, and synthetic reverb ought to be the completing the room impression.
So in other words (and I agree in many cases) the idea is not for accurate reproduction of the original event, but more a pleasant sonic product of our own creation.
With the wide variety of recordings, I think the majority are as he describes.
So the actual goal of translation from live to recorded is not sonic reality, but pleasant artistry.
One might even go on to say that their are now at least two kinds of audiophiles, (and recordings) or audiophile goals, one that is interested in the closest reproduction of the original event in a different space, and one that is interested in the most pleasing reproduction including the different space.
-
So the actual goal of translation from live to recorded is not sonic reality, but pleasant artistry.
...I think, we would need both. The possibility for recreating the genuine sonic field in all three room dimensions, as well also creating product of art, which in some cases much better as the real event.
In any case seem subtract the playback room acoustics, as described at the site, is the more sophisticated way in any case, compared by damping.
-
I agree completely that most recordings don't have to strive for accuracy. What matters most is if it sounds pleasing. Most / all pop music is a studio creation. Even with classical and jazz, the best recordings (IMO) are far from sounding like the real thing. I want clarity, and a full pleasing sound.
In any case seem subtract the playback room acoustics
That's my take too. If we trust the artists and producers and engineers to create stuff that sounds good, then that is what we should aim to hear accurately. When you remove the room from the playback, you get closer to the artist's intent.
--Ethan
-
When you remove the room from the playback, you get closer to the artist's intent.
--Ethan
AMEN! :thumb:
-
When you remove the room from the playback, you get closer to the artist's intent.
--Ethan
Hi Ethan,
Unfortunately, we have not really a chance for removing the playback room acoustics in the traditional audio, because all signal components are merged already during the record. In my opinion, we need, besides some other revolutions :), also a revolution in audio, off from the channels orientated, towards the object related solutions, like Wave Field Synthesis and Holophony.
H.
-
....revolution in audio, off from the channels orientated, towards the object related solutions,...
I think there is a need to describing this:
The main, which we have to discuss in that thread is, we perceive two rooms in one record. The recording room acoustics, stored in the recording, and in addition, unwanted, the playback room acoustics.
As far as the playback room acoustics roughly the same as the recording room acoustic, two ways for solve the problem exist:
Either, we avoid record of room acoustics during record, or we are avoiding reflections by playback room damping.
In the most cases however, the recording room and playback room is very differently in the acoustic matter. The reflective behavior is one of the obstacles, but much more important is the different size.
In that situation, no other way remains as damping the reflections of playback room. In another case, the first reflections arrive too early at the listener, causing short Initial Time Delay Gap and wrong comb filter effects. Unequally later reflections, the first reflections cannot equalize its influence by statistic superposition. Single reflections are causing deep notches and big hills by superposition with the direct wave front.
The object related procedures transmit the pure audio (content) , and create the reflections from information regarding recording room properties (form). That allows, subtract the additional run times in the playback room. The notches and hills are the notches and hills of the recording room by this reason, without damping strongly the playback environment.
H.