|
Post by duke on Jun 8, 2017 23:27:05 GMT -6
Just so you guys know, I'm not a recording engineer, just a speaker designer. So apologies in advance for whatever misconceptions I still have – please feel free to correct me.
One of the things I've noticed in reading threads on this site is how much attention you guys pay to the acoustic treatment of your rooms. That makes total sense to me, especially given the restricted room size of most project studios. Small rooms have the shortest reflection paths, and in general early reflections are the ones most likely to be detrimental.
Acoustic treatment can affect the intensity, spectral balance, diffusiveness, and decay times of reflections. Ideally we want the direct or first-arrival sound to be fairly loud relative to the reflections, and we'd like to minimize early reflections without totally killing the later ones (which would make the room too dead). We'd also like the reverberant field to be spectrally similar to the first-arrival sound, to be diffuse, and for the reverberant energy to decay smoothly as far down the spectrum as is reasonably feasible. Please feel free to add to or correct any of this!
Studio monitor design by itself can't do much about the diffusiveness of reflections nor their decay times (those being the domain of room treatments), but monitor design can at least affect the amount of energy in early reflections, the relative loudness of the direct vs reverberant sound, and the spectral balance of the reverberant energy.
Are improvements in these areas worth pursuing? I think so, but welcome input from any of you on this topic.
Unfortunately few improvements in loudspeaker design come without tradeoffs. One of the tradeoffs we'd have to make in order to get better radiation pattern control is, size. In order to get good pattern control down to a given frequency, the theoretical minimum enclosure height and width dimensions usually need to be about one-half wavelength at that frequency (it is possible to reduce the size penalty somewhat but it's expensive to do so and other penalties arise). So if we want to make improvements in radiation pattern control, the net result is going to be, wider monitors... and in practice, probably taller as well.
So here is my hypothetical question:
Could you live with monitors that are several inches wider and taller than what is normally used in a project studio, if the result would be an improvement in room interaction, at least in the mids and highs? The answer is probably “it depends”, but for the sake of this hypothetical, let's assume enclosure width and height are the only things that change.
I realize it's highly counter-intuitive to talk about bigger monitors for smaller rooms, but small rooms are the biggest challenges from an acoustics standpoint, and thus arguably would benefit the most from improvements in radiation pattern control.
Thanks in advance for any and all critiques, suggestions, comments, and insights.
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jun 8, 2017 23:35:51 GMT -6
Within reason, it makes no difference to me if the speakers are larger, smaller.. mount horizontal or vertical...
When I get them, I spend time putting them in the "right spot" and there they stay, for a decade or more... till I change them for the next set.
The treatment, room, placement and acoustic treatment are all part of the process of getting it right... so to speak.. in my environment.
hope that is of some help
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
Post by mulmany on Jun 8, 2017 23:43:12 GMT -6
I did not consider size in my last speaker purchase, but I did look and price and performance. If you can build a better speaker for less and the trade off is size... Go big or go home!
I think a better metric is optimal listening distance.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jun 8, 2017 23:51:46 GMT -6
I did not consider size in my last speaker purchase, but I did look and price and performance. If you can build a better speaker for less and the trade off is size... Go big or go home! I think a better metric is optimal listening distance. Thank you mulmany...
Can you tell me your ideas about optimal listening distance? I really haven't been thinking in those terms, so anything you have to say will be very helpful.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jun 8, 2017 23:53:04 GMT -6
Within reason, it makes no difference to me if the speakers are larger, smaller.. mount horizontal or vertical... When I get them, I spend time putting them in the "right spot" and there they stay, for a decade or more... till I change them for the next set. The treatment, room, placement and acoustic treatment are all part of the process of getting it right... so to speak.. in my environment. hope that is of some help cheers Wiz Yes that does help - thank you! I was hoping that speaker size would be low in the list of priorities, and it sounds like it is for you.
|
|
|
Post by mulmany on Jun 9, 2017 9:05:41 GMT -6
I did not consider size in my last speaker purchase, but I did look and price and performance. If you can build a better speaker for less and the trade off is size... Go big or go home! I think a better metric is optimal listening distance. Thank you mulmany...
Can you tell me your ideas about optimal listening distance? I really haven't been thinking in those terms, so anything you have to say will be very helpful.
In my experience, speakers have a critical distance where you cannot distinguish the crossover region. IMHO near fields are used too close to the listener. I have a preference for 3-ways and have found that I need at least a 6ft equilateral triangle so that the speakers have blended correct ly at the crossover. Hope that makes sense. I guess you could say the distance that the waveforms have combined to form the acoustic center of the speaker.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,937
|
Post by ericn on Jun 9, 2017 10:00:59 GMT -6
Every speaker and room are different and interact differently. Increasing the baffle size is going to have a minimal effect, so I wouldn't pay to much attention.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jun 9, 2017 10:31:36 GMT -6
Thank you mulmany...
Can you tell me your ideas about optimal listening distance? I really haven't been thinking in those terms, so anything you have to say will be very helpful.
In my experience, speakers have a critical distance where you cannot distinguish the crossover region. IMHO near fields are used too close to the listener. I have a preference for 3-ways and have found that I need at least a 6ft equilateral triangle so that the speakers have blended correct ly at the crossover. Hope that makes sense. I guess you could say the distance that the waveforms have combined to form the acoustic center of the speaker. Thank you for elaborating, that makes sense. I don't normally listen nearfield so I really appreciate your raising my awareness.
The ear's vertical sound source localization is poor in comparison with its ability to localize in the horizontal plane, and localization ability peaks in both planes in the 4 kHz region. In the vertical plane, the ear tends to mis-judge tones higher than about 6 kHz as coming from a location physically higher than they actually do, and likewise tends to misjudge tones lower than about 1.5 kHz as coming from lower than they actually do. This might be an argument for using two-way monitors upside-down, or at least giving it a try.
Because of the ear's greater angular resolution in the horizontal plane, I would think that the minimum distance is greater for a speaker on its side, unless the speaker is axi-symmetric (MTM or coaxial).
Obviously we'd want the drivers as physically close to one another as possible, but I would think that arrival time also plays a role in coherence at close range, so small timing differences arising from relative phase and relative driver depth can come into play. Lots of stuff to take into account.
If you don't mind, could you tell me which 3-way monitor you use? That information, combined with your 6 foot listening distance, will give me a good data point.
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jun 9, 2017 11:10:38 GMT -6
Every speaker and room are different and interact differently. Increasing the baffle size is going to have a minimal effect, so I wouldn't pay to much attention. Imo we can probably make some assumptions about the environment that a monitor will encounter in a project studio, and hopefully go on to use those assumptions to our advantage. For instance, there will usually be a reflective surface below the monitor and in between the monitor and the listener, so the narrower the pattern is in the vertical plane, the less energy in the (undesirable) early reflection off that surface.
True that baffle size itself makes little acoustic difference except down in the "baffle step" region, but things like cone diameter do make a difference, and those things usually set the minimums for baffle size.
|
|
|
Post by mulmany on Jun 9, 2017 12:55:37 GMT -6
In my experience, speakers have a critical distance where you cannot distinguish the crossover region. IMHO near fields are used too close to the listener. I have a preference for 3-ways and have found that I need at least a 6ft equilateral triangle so that the speakers have blended correct ly at the crossover. Hope that makes sense. I guess you could say the distance that the waveforms have combined to form the acoustic center of the speaker. Thank you for elaborating, that makes sense. I don't normally listen nearfield so I really appreciate your raising my awareness.
The ear's vertical sound source localization is poor in comparison with its ability to localize in the horizontal plane, and localization ability peaks in both planes in the 4 kHz region. In the vertical plane, the ear tends to mis-judge tones higher than about 6 kHz as coming from a location physically higher than they actually do, and likewise tends to misjudge tones lower than about 1.5 kHz as coming from lower than they actually do. This might be an argument for using two-way monitors upside-down, or at least giving it a try.
Because of the ear's greater angular resolution in the horizontal plane, I would think that the minimum distance is greater for a speaker on its side, unless the speaker is axi-symmetric (MTM or coaxial).
Obviously we'd want the drivers as physically close to one another as possible, but I would think that arrival time also plays a role in coherence at close range, so small timing differences arising from relative phase and relative driver depth can come into play. Lots of stuff to take into account.
If you don't mind, could you tell me which 3-way monitor you use? That information, combined with your 6 foot listening distance, will give me a good data point.
Thanks!
I am using KRK 10-3's set up horizontal with the mid/hi rotated vertical. Not super hi-end speakers, but they translate really well for me.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jun 9, 2017 14:06:49 GMT -6
Thank you for elaborating, that makes sense. I don't normally listen nearfield so I really appreciate your raising my awareness.
The ear's vertical sound source localization is poor in comparison with its ability to localize in the horizontal plane, and localization ability peaks in both planes in the 4 kHz region. In the vertical plane, the ear tends to mis-judge tones higher than about 6 kHz as coming from a location physically higher than they actually do, and likewise tends to misjudge tones lower than about 1.5 kHz as coming from lower than they actually do. This might be an argument for using two-way monitors upside-down, or at least giving it a try.
Because of the ear's greater angular resolution in the horizontal plane, I would think that the minimum distance is greater for a speaker on its side, unless the speaker is axi-symmetric (MTM or coaxial).
Obviously we'd want the drivers as physically close to one another as possible, but I would think that arrival time also plays a role in coherence at close range, so small timing differences arising from relative phase and relative driver depth can come into play. Lots of stuff to take into account.
If you don't mind, could you tell me which 3-way monitor you use? That information, combined with your 6 foot listening distance, will give me a good data point.
Thanks!
I am using KRK 10-3's set up horizontal with the mid/hi rotated vertical. Not super hi-end speakers, but they translate really well for me. Thank you, that is quite helpful!
Looks like that KRK is a lot of speaker for a very reasonable price, and if they "translate really well", that's a great!
Aside from going deeper and louder (if needed), a 3-way often has this advantage over a smaller 2-way: The off-axis energy's spectral balance is closer to that of the on-axis energy. This is because the "steps" in going from one driver diameter to the next are inherently smaller, which reduces the magnitude of any off-axis glitches in the crossover regions as we transition from a driver that's starting to beam to a smaller driver that's not. (This is a generalization - there are of course exceptions.) Ime significant spectral discrepancies between the first-arrival sound and the reverberant sound can result in listening fatigue. This is not the only potential source of listening fatigue of course, but it's one of the more sneaky ones.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Jun 14, 2017 15:16:53 GMT -6
The room I work in is a LEDE thing and very dry ø 200 ms I like dry rooms and its yet the best way to do my mixes.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jun 14, 2017 18:30:17 GMT -6
The room I work in is a LEDE thing and very dry ø 200 ms I like dry rooms and its yet the best way to do my mixes. If I understand correctly, the idea behind an LEDE room is, to minimize the relatively detrimental early reflections while preserving, as much as reasonably possible, the relatively beneficial later-arriving reflections.
I think this is hard to pull off in a small room because, in most cases, enough absorption to suppress the early reflections ends up absorbing more than just the early ones. Because the reflection paths are so short in a small room, within a given time interval there will be many more reflections that bounce into an absorptive panel.
So I'm thinking that monitors with fairly narrow radiation patterns would need less absorptive treatment to adequately suppress early reflections, allowing us to still get the clarity of a good LEDE room, but we'd have a bit more sense of spaciousness and envelopment because our T60 would be a bit longer due to the reduced amount of absorption needed.
I'm curious... can you let me know what monitors you use, and your approximate room dimensions? That information (combined with what you posted above) would be valuable data to me. Danke!
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Jun 14, 2017 20:09:52 GMT -6
Duke. The room I work in is a total mess by its dimension and build materials form around 1920. I used tons of broadband base absorption and the speakers ended up very much left corner of the room because we had the best base response there. I use Genelecs 8040 in extreme Nearfield position because that was where we got the best measurements. The Mointors are about a 2,62 feet away form the ear distance. Great sweet spot very stable.
Behind the monitors is the DEAD END. In my back I have two Schroeder diffusers.
I can make a layout plan tomorrow.
Its all against theory but everybody who used to work with me agreed that it sounds good. Its a typical home recording compromise situation and I think we hear to 80% direct signal.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jun 14, 2017 20:51:41 GMT -6
Duke. The room I work in is a total mess by its dimension and build materials form around 1920. I used tons of broadband base absorption and the speakers ended up very much left corner of the room because we had the best base response there. I use Genelecs 8040 in extreme Nearfield position because that was where we got the best measurements. The Mointors are about a 2,62 feet away form the ear distance. Great sweet spot very stable. Behind the monitors is the DEAD END. In my back I have two Schroeder diffusers. I can make a layout plan tomorrow. Its all against theory but everybody who used to work with me agreed that it sounds good. Its a typical home recording compromise situation and I think we hear to 80% direct signal. Thank you very much for providing this information!
My understanding is that small rooms are the hardest to get right, and what ends up working well may be very different from what theory predicts, as in your case. I remember George Augspurger saying that room modeling programs do a good job with big rooms but that he's never seen one that worked well for small rooms. His observation was that "slight details make a much bigger difference in a small room."
Those Genelecs have a waveguide around the tweeter so imo that is a choice that makes a lot of sense for your space. And since the waveguide is elliptical, the vertical spacing between woofer and tweeter is minimized, which is good for close listening distances.
Thank you for the offer, but no need to make a layout plan.
|
|
|
Post by javamad on Jun 15, 2017 6:13:19 GMT -6
Hi Duke.
I would fully support any developments that can help the long-suffering home studio in mixing. The biggest thing I believe they have to deal with apart from good stereo image is handling bass energy. Very often a home studio owner will have some very tight space constraints, as they get the use of a spare room or garage and there is no physical space (or budget) for the right amount of absorption required. So these domestic spaces are full of un-treated room modes.
If by using a larger cabinet you are also lowering the total amount of bass energy the speaker puts out then I would say that you might be on to something. The physics associated with low frequency wave propagation make me doubt it can be done effectively at non-professional pricing levels though.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Jun 15, 2017 6:50:30 GMT -6
Directional bass response would be good in that you could mitigate treatment options, or at least better manage bass monitoring/treatment solutions. I run a pair of HS-50's with no sub in my room, alongside a set of auralex foam wedges at the early reflection points. Speakers are about 2 feet off the back wall and with corner trapping on the front walls. I'm pretty happy with how it sounds, and I feel adding more bass would just add problems,currently. I'd doubt my next investment would be anything *but* rear wall trapping.
A couple of notes is that typical nearfields are being used very near, very often in small-medium studios I see the listener position as being too close - either to deal with the interference of reflections on stereo image, or size or just ignorance. With this, I would assume the issue of driver-pinnae directionality becomes even more critical?
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jun 15, 2017 13:20:52 GMT -6
Hi Duke. I would fully support any developments that can help the long-suffering home studio in mixing. The biggest thing I believe they have to deal with apart from good stereo image is handling bass energy. Very often a home studio owner will have some very tight space constraints, as they get the use of a spare room or garage and there is no physical space (or budget) for the right amount of absorption required. So these domestic spaces are full of un-treated room modes. If by using a larger cabinet you are also lowering the total amount of bass energy the speaker puts out then I would say that you might be on to something. The physics associated with low frequency wave propagation make me doubt it can be done effectively at non-professional pricing levels though. Thank you very much for your encouragement! I'd love to do something at the creative end of the music chain. And not just because you guys have so much money to throw around.
I didn't ask about the bass region in my initial post because I'm starting out cautiously optimistic about being able to offer a worthwhile improvement at that end of the spectrum. Not that there won't be challenges of course.
Here's some quick psychoacoustic background information: The ear/brain system has poor time domain resolution at low frequencies (say below 100 Hz or so), to the extent that we cannot hear the woofer's output apart from the room's effects in small rooms (and just about anything we're talking about on this forum is a "small" room). The ear/brain system cannot detect the presence of bass energy from less than one wavelength, and must hear several wavelengths in order to detect pitch. Considering how long bass wavelengths are relative to our room dimensions, by the time we hear the bass, the room's effects are already all over it. So in the bass region at least, speaker + room = an inseparable system, from the standpoint of perception.
Also, the ear is particularly sensitive to SPL differences in the bass region (peaks and dips, especially the peaks). If you eyeball a set of Fletcher-Munsen curves, you'll see that they bunch up south of 100 Hz or so. This means that a small change in SPL makes a disproportionately large change in perceived loudness. In fact, a 6 dB change at 50 Hz makes just about as much of a perceptual difference in loudness as does a 12 dB change at 1 kHz! Thus a 6 dB peak in the bass region really sticks out like a sore thumb. Given that small rooms inherently have the worst peaks and dips in the bass region, they also have the most room for improvement.
The approach I embrace in pursuit of that improvement is somewhat counter-intuitive: Four bass sources (small subwoofers) distributed asymmetrically around the room. Each will inevitably produce a nasty peak-and-dip pattern at the listening position... but each of these nasty peak-and-dip patterns will be different. The sum of all these different peak-and-dip patterns will be significantly smoother than any one alone.
At low frequencies, speaker + room = a minimum phase system. What this means is, the frequency response and time-domain response are so closely tied together that what affects one, affects the other. And when we fix one, we have simultaneously fixed the other! Absorption works on the decay times which therefore fixes the frequency response. And a distributed multisub system works on the frequency response which therefore fixes the decay times. But the thing is, in most cases we can make a greater improvement (and with far less space occupied) with distributed multisubs. And we can use both techniques.
One nice side effect of this approach is, the benefits hold up throughout the room... in contrast to relying in EQ, which usually worsens the bass response elsewhere in the room in exchange for improvements at the mix position.
Credit to Earl Geddes for the asymmetrically distributed multisub concept. I'm using his idea with his permission.
Just to make sure my point isn't misunderstood, the argument for using multiple subs has to do entirely with quality, not quantity. As for quantity, too much bass is far worse than not enough. But if the quality is there, then the quantity (loudness and bottom-end extension) can be adjusted until it's right for the application.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jun 15, 2017 13:55:02 GMT -6
Directional bass response would be good in that you could mitigate treatment options, or at least better manage bass monitoring/treatment solutions. I run a pair of HS-50's with no sub in my room, alongside a set of auralex foam wedges at the early reflection points. Speakers are about 2 feet off the back wall and with corner trapping on the front walls. I'm pretty happy with how it sounds, and I feel adding more bass would just add problems,currently. I'd doubt my next investment would be anything *but* rear wall trapping. A couple of notes is that typical nearfields are being used very near, very often in small-medium studios I see the listener position as being too close - either to deal with the interference of reflections on stereo image, or size or just ignorance. With this, I would assume the issue of driver-pinnae directionality becomes even more critical? I've owned several directional bass systems (dynamic dipoles, planar magnetic dipoles, electrostatic dipoles, passive cardioids). My observation is this: They do a very good job with pitch definition, but because they rely on cancellation to achieve their pattern control, they don't "pressurize" the room at bass frequencies, especially if it's a small room where the modal region gives way to the pressure region higher up than in a larger room. The "pressure zone" becomes the "no-pressure zone" with a dipole, for example. So they don't convey that tactile "THUMP" very well.
An active cardioid system could probably be programmed to transition from cardioid to monopole in a way that complements the transition from modal region to pressure region.
That being said, anecdotal feedback leans me in the direction of the distributed multisub system (like what I described to javamad) over an active cardioid system, but I can see arguments either way.
You mentioned that typical nearfields are often used with "the listener position being too close", perhaps "to deal with the interference of reflections on stereo image." I think that a more directional speaker could probably be positioned a bit further away, for the same degree of reduction in early reflections.
In response to your question, I would think that, the closer the speakers are, the more disruption small head movements impose on the angular relationships between drivers and pinnae. So I would think that head placement and angle relative to the speakers is more critical when the speakers are very close.
Do you think it would be a worthwhile advantage to be able to position the speakers a bit further away from the listener, assuming imaging isn't compromised?
* * * *
I can't help but notice that the two of you, jazznoise and javamad, are both from Ireland. My mother was an O'Niell. Note the incorrect spelling. Her great-great-grandfather started out as an O'Neill (the correct original spelling) and there was a member of Parliament with the same last name. Well turns out he hated the member of Parliament so much that he actually changed the spelling of his own last name! So the conclusion I draw is... a person hasn't really been hated until he's been hated by an Irishman!
|
|
|
Post by javamad on Jun 16, 2017 0:58:04 GMT -6
....
The approach I embrace in pursuit of that improvement is somewhat counter-intuitive: Four bass sources (small subwoofers) distributed asymmetrically around the room. Each will inevitably produce a nasty peak-and-dip pattern at the listening position... but each of these nasty peak-and-dip patterns will be different. The sum of all these different peak-and-dip patterns will be significantly smoother than any one alone.
....
Just to make sure my point isn't misunderstood, the argument for using multiple subs has to do entirely with quality, not quantity. As for quantity, too much bass is far worse than not enough. But if the quality is there, then the quantity (loudness and bottom-end extension) can be adjusted until it's right for the application.
4 subs as part of the designed solution sounds like it would have some great potential improvements. To realize that potential though, I wonder if the placement guide could be more scientific (and therefore more likely to work) than the usual advice "move them around until it sounds good". As you say, our perception of lower frequencies is not very accurate so it would be difficult for someone to evaluate the "best" solution by ear with 4 moving parts. So some kind of App that gives you a rating and you move them around until the App says this is the best you are getting in this room. I also wouldn't be too worried about eq solutions not having benefits outside the mix position .. in the spaces I am thinking about there is only room enough for one position
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jun 16, 2017 2:08:15 GMT -6
....
The approach I embrace in pursuit of that improvement is somewhat counter-intuitive: Four bass sources (small subwoofers) distributed asymmetrically around the room. Each will inevitably produce a nasty peak-and-dip pattern at the listening position... but each of these nasty peak-and-dip patterns will be different. The sum of all these different peak-and-dip patterns will be significantly smoother than any one alone.
....
Just to make sure my point isn't misunderstood, the argument for using multiple subs has to do entirely with quality, not quantity. As for quantity, too much bass is far worse than not enough. But if the quality is there, then the quantity (loudness and bottom-end extension) can be adjusted until it's right for the application.
4 subs as part of the designed solution sounds like it would have some great potential improvements. To realize that potential though, I wonder if the placement guide could be more scientific (and therefore more likely to work) than the usual advice "move them around until it sounds good". As you say, our perception of lower frequencies is not very accurate so it would be difficult for someone to evaluate the "best" solution by ear with 4 moving parts. So some kind of App that gives you a rating and you move them around until the App says this is the best you are getting in this room. I also wouldn't be too worried about eq solutions not having benefits outside the mix position .. in the spaces I am thinking about there is only room enough for one position I do have several sets of guidelines from which people can choose which makes the most sense for them. The general principle is, spread 'em out - don't cluster them. By way of example, here's one approach that I call "Golden Ratio" (based on 1/1.62, which equals .62):
One sub goes in a front corner. The second sub goes .38 times the long wall length away from a corner (not necessarily that one). The third sub goes .24 times the long wall length away from a corner. The fourth sub goes .15 times the long wall length away from a corner. You want to end up with at least one sub somewhere along each of the two walls that are opposite that first corner (the one with the first sub in it). I'd suggest rough-sketching it out first, and remember to avoid clustering. As for where these numbers come from: 1 - .62 = .38; .38 x .62 = .25; and .25 x .62 = .15. Bonus points if you can elevate one of the subs above the midpoint of the room, thus getting good distribution of your bass sources in all three dimensions.
Odds are that one or more of these locations will already be occupied by something that is impractical to move. That's okay - with four low frequency sources, their exact locations are fairly non-critical. Besides, the effective acoustic dimensions of a room are affected by how stiff the room boundaries are as well as whether there are any openings or "soft spots" in them like doors or windows or HVAC vents. So even if you were able to achieve what your tape measure says is dimensional precision in placement, it still will not be acoustic precision at low frequencies.
I don't think I could write an app that can tell you when there is no further room for improvement. But a pink noise source, microphone, and real-time spectrum analyzer will tell you how you are doing.
The distributed multisub system has one more trick up its sleeve (at least my variations on the theme do): By reversing the polarity of one of the subs, we can increase the de-correlation in the bass region, resulting in a closer approximation of the low frequency sound field in a larger room. Every time I've tried reversing the polarity of one sub, the result has been a net improvement. Typically I reverse the polarity on whichever sub is located farthest from the main speakers. This technique also prevents the rise in SPL we'd otherwise get when the wavelengths become longer than twice the smallest room dimension, as the room behavior transitions from modal to pressure zone.
There is one more psychoacoustic benefit from a distributed multisub system I haven't described yet. The ear/brain system tends to "average out" peaks and dips which occur within roughly 1/3 octave of one another. One of the typical problems in small rooms is that the peaks and dips are too far apart at low frequencies for the ear's averaging mechanism to come into play. (At shorter wavelengths we still have plenty of room reflections causing peaks and dips, but eventually as we go up in frequency these peaks and dips get close enough together to effectively form a continuum, by which point they fall well within parameters for the averaging mechanism to do its thing.)
Anyway the distributed multisub approach results in much more numerous peaks and dips, which are smaller and bunched up closer together. This latter characteristic means that the ear/brain system's averaging mechanism can come into play. So the perceptual improvements may be greater than one might expect simply from eyeballing the frequency response curves.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Jun 16, 2017 4:37:35 GMT -6
Do you think it would be a worthwhile advantage to be able to position the speakers a bit further away from the listener, assuming imaging isn't compromised?
* * * *
I can't help but notice that the two of you, jazznoise and javamad, are both from Ireland. My mother was an O'Niell. Note the incorrect spelling. Her great-great-grandfather started out as an O'Neill (the correct original spelling) and there was a member of Parliament with the same last name. Well turns out he hated the member of Parliament so much that he actually changed the spelling of his own last name! So the conclusion I draw is... a person hasn't really been hated until he's been hated by an Irishman!
Interesting stuff re: directional bass systems, the multi sub system sounds interesting if calibrated. Again my only worry with something like that is space considerations. How many subs would be required for such a system, what sort of power and size? Regarding the idea of a calibrated directional system: think it's a double edged sword - I think guys in tiny edit suits and little bedrooms will be forced to stick with simple 2 way systems. But in rooms where the listener is finding themselves uncomfortably close and has the rear wall space, I would say they would greatly enjoy being able to move back and also the assumed wider sweet spot they would have from this (compared to the about-the-size-of-your-head situations some of these rooms run under). O Neil is a northern name, which fits the hot-blooded element of that story. If you found his name I'm sure I could tell you more. Being a land-league'r or a Unionist was deeply political, geographical and material part of people's lives. A quick wiki says probably Baron William O Neil? There's a line of em up there, Anglo-Irish, and since everyone ever in Ireland is related and presumes relation unto others, I imagine he was getting some flack for sharing the name. They could even be blood related and there could be some disownment involved. You'd be amazed. My grandmother was English, and her father-in-law was an IRA man (actually a Flying Columns member) and was fine with it. Her brother-in-law, however, refused to speak to her. People are nuts.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jun 16, 2017 13:24:52 GMT -6
Interesting stuff re: directional bass systems, the multi sub system sounds interesting if calibrated. Again my only worry with something like that is space considerations. How many subs would be required for such a system, what sort of power and size? Regarding the idea of a calibrated directional system: think it's a double edged sword - I think guys in tiny edit suits and little bedrooms will be forced to stick with simple 2 way systems. But in rooms where the listener is finding themselves uncomfortably close and has the rear wall space, I would say they would greatly enjoy being able to move back and also the assumed wider sweet spot they would have from this (compared to the about-the-size-of-your-head situations some of these rooms run under). O Neil is a northern name, which fits the hot-blooded element of that story. If you found his name I'm sure I could tell you more. Being a land-league'r or a Unionist was deeply political, geographical and material part of people's lives. A quick wiki says probably Baron William O Neil? There's a line of em up there, Anglo-Irish, and since everyone ever in Ireland is related and presumes relation unto others, I imagine he was getting some flack for sharing the name. They could even be blood related and there could be some disownment involved. You'd be amazed. My grandmother was English, and her father-in-law was an IRA man (actually a Flying Columns member) and was fine with it. Her brother-in-law, however, refused to speak to her. People are nuts. The configuration I normally use for home audio is, a single central amplifier driving four small subs with 10" woofers. Sometimes two amps, for stereo, or for other purposes. (My home audio subwoofer system is called The Swarm, there's some commentary online, but I'd be scaling back the size and cost for home studio). For home studio, one possibility is four small subs with 8" woofers, perhaps measuring 10" (25 cm) square by 21" (53 cm) tall, driven by a two-channel amp. Crown makes one that looks promising. 500 watts total should be more than enough.
The smaller rooms are the bigger challenge, and I'm still in learning mode. Just ordered Philip Newell's book on studio design, reading through Alton Everest's book on Acoustics again... still have a lot of homework to do. I'm starting to think that, in a very small space, fairly directional mains + an unorthodox setup geometry would yield a small geometrical improvement in early reflection path lengths, but whether that translates into a real-world audible improvement is of course unknown at this point.
Thanks for the insights into the family name and temperament! I dimly remember being told as a child how awful the English were, but keep forgetting that I'm supposed to hate them. Don't recall the first name of the original "O'Niell"... but now you've got me curious, I'll see if I can find out. His son (if I recall correctly) settled in Louisiana some time before our Civil War. If family folklore is to be believed, he upheld northern Irish tradition when it came to resolving differences of opinion on local political matters.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,937
|
Post by ericn on Jun 16, 2017 16:15:33 GMT -6
Interesting stuff re: directional bass systems, the multi sub system sounds interesting if calibrated. Again my only worry with something like that is space considerations. How many subs would be required for such a system, what sort of power and size? Regarding the idea of a calibrated directional system: think it's a double edged sword - I think guys in tiny edit suits and little bedrooms will be forced to stick with simple 2 way systems. But in rooms where the listener is finding themselves uncomfortably close and has the rear wall space, I would say they would greatly enjoy being able to move back and also the assumed wider sweet spot they would have from this (compared to the about-the-size-of-your-head situations some of these rooms run under). O Neil is a northern name, which fits the hot-blooded element of that story. If you found his name I'm sure I could tell you more. Being a land-league'r or a Unionist was deeply political, geographical and material part of people's lives. A quick wiki says probably Baron William O Neil? There's a line of em up there, Anglo-Irish, and since everyone ever in Ireland is related and presumes relation unto others, I imagine he was getting some flack for sharing the name. They could even be blood related and there could be some disownment involved. You'd be amazed. My grandmother was English, and her father-in-law was an IRA man (actually a Flying Columns member) and was fine with it. Her brother-in-law, however, refused to speak to her. People are nuts. The configuration I normally use for home audio is, a single central amplifier driving four small subs with 10" woofers. Sometimes two amps, for stereo, or for other purposes. (My home audio subwoofer system is called The Swarm, there's some commentary online, but I'd be scaling back the size and cost for home studio). For home studio, one possibility is four small subs with 8" woofers, perhaps measuring 10" (25 cm) square by 21" (53 cm) tall, driven by a two-channel amp. Crown makes one that looks promising. 500 watts total should be more than enough.
The smaller rooms are the bigger challenge, and I'm still in learning mode. Just ordered Philip Newell's book on studio design, reading through Alton Everest's book on Acoustics again... still have a lot of homework to do. I'm starting to think that, in a very small space, fairly directional mains + an unorthodox setup geometry would yield a small geometrical improvement in early reflection path lengths, but whether that translates into a real-world audible improvement is of course unknown at this point.
Thanks for the insights into the family name and temperament! I dimly remember being told as a child how awful the English were, but keep forgetting that I'm supposed to hate them. Don't recall the first name of the original "O'Niell"... but now you've got me curious, I'll see if I can find out. His son (if I recall correctly) settled in Louisiana some time before our Civil War. If family folklore is to be believed, he upheld northern Irish tradition when it came to resolving differences of opinion on local political matters.
Newells book while very informative leans heavily on larger commercial rooms, that is what he built his reputation on. Curious what drivers your thinking for the studio system?
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jun 16, 2017 17:17:06 GMT -6
The configuration I normally use for home audio is, a single central amplifier driving four small subs with 10" woofers. Sometimes two amps, for stereo, or for other purposes. (My home audio subwoofer system is called The Swarm, there's some commentary online, but I'd be scaling back the size and cost for home studio). For home studio, one possibility is four small subs with 8" woofers, perhaps measuring 10" (25 cm) square by 21" (53 cm) tall, driven by a two-channel amp. Crown makes one that looks promising. 500 watts total should be more than enough.
The smaller rooms are the bigger challenge, and I'm still in learning mode. Just ordered Philip Newell's book on studio design, reading through Alton Everest's book on Acoustics again... still have a lot of homework to do. I'm starting to think that, in a very small space, fairly directional mains + an unorthodox setup geometry would yield a small geometrical improvement in early reflection path lengths, but whether that translates into a real-world audible improvement is of course unknown at this point.
Thanks for the insights into the family name and temperament! I dimly remember being told as a child how awful the English were, but keep forgetting that I'm supposed to hate them. Don't recall the first name of the original "O'Niell"... but now you've got me curious, I'll see if I can find out. His son (if I recall correctly) settled in Louisiana some time before our Civil War. If family folklore is to be believed, he upheld northern Irish tradition when it came to resolving differences of opinion on local political matters.
Newells book while very informative leans heavily on larger commercial rooms, that is what he built his reputation on. Curious what drivers your thinking for the studio system? If you have any recommendations for sources that are more focused on home studios than Newell, I'm all ears!! I figure I need to at least read up on the subject before a) launching a barrage of annoying questions here and/or b) starting to build prototype mains.
I'll be testing a candidate subwoofer driver in the next few weeks, but would rather not say what it is just yet.
Still haven't even decided on what configuration to use for the mains yet. The current front-runners are coaxial and MHM (mid-horn-mid). Driver choice will get narrowed down once I think I've figured out where the goal posts are. But price is a consideration, which unfortunately rules out Volts!
My R&D projects tend to stagger along in fits and starts, as I keep having to go back to doing other things that pay the bills.
|
|