Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » A $400 soundblaster?
|
|
|
|
| Re: A $400 soundblaster? [message #58465 is a reply to message #58463] |
Sat, 24 September 2005 23:31   |
Tom Bruhl
Messages: 1368
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
led âtighteningâ the room), and youâd like
to encourage the sound to decay equally quickly in ALL audible frequency
ranges.
I like to make the front wall absorbent at ALL frequencies (this can
require some moderate carpentry, building a flexural absorber for low
frequencies and covering it with foam or fiberglass for high
frequencies). Also, make at least the front third of the ceiling
absorbent down to 500 Hz. (4 inches of fiberglass covered with fabric or
any 4â foam panels will do fine). This usually gets the decay time
down to under 150 ms. and with other absorption in the room, it is
possible to get the decay time under 100 ms., which will yield really
good results.
Interestingly, if you do it right, the room will still sound pretty
natural, and not particularly dead, absorbent or weird. To give you an
idea of how I approach this for clients, Iâve included drawings of a
generic âmonitor shellâ I often use. Use it for inspiration!
Standing Waves
Standing waves are the long low frequency waves supported by the room
dimensions. They add a resonant signature to the room, and are
generally problematical at low frequencies. At mid and high
frequencies, standing waves are everywhere in great profusion, and
they donât matter for our purposes here.
Happily, standing waves are dependent on the room walls being reflective
at low frequencies. IF you make the front wall absorptive at low
frequencies, you will pretty much take care of any standing waves that
would be a problem. Further, openings like doors and windows can make
excellent bass traps, if isolation is not an issue â for instance, I
use a big atrium window as a bass trap in my room, and it works very well.
Loudspeaker Placement
Loudspeaker placement is often as important as the choice of loudspeaker
itself in determining the overall sound quality of a system. There are
a couple of principles to get you started, and if youâve done your
homework on the room, above, placement of the monitors is going to be a
lot more benign, not to mention easier.
To begin with, the loudspeakers need to use the same median plane as the
room has â this is a key ingredient for symmetry.
Secondly, the tweeters need to be at ear height, and/or directly aimed
at the ears (unless the manufacturer specifically tells you otherwise).
Third, the speakers need to be either mounted âinâ the front
wall (âsoffitedâ) or be far enough âfromâ the front wall to keep
low frequency response from being seriously disrupted by interfering
reflections from the front wall. Mounting âinâ the wall is a pretty
nice thing to do, and it is moderately easy if you build something like
my absorbent âmonitoring shellâ for the front wall that includes
cutouts for the speakers.
If you want the speakers to be out in the room, it is good to get them
several feet (at least 3 feet, 5 is better) from the front wall, unless
that wall is REALLY absorbent at low frequencies. Similarly, you should
avoid placing the speakers too close to the side walls (Iâd suggest 3
feet as a minimum distance). Finally, you should avoid having the
speakers at the same distance from the front and side walls, if possible.
For the rest of it, there is a common practice tradition of listening to
speakers that are each 30° off the median plane (and we do our serious
listening ON the median plane), so that the two loudspeakers and our
listening position constitute an equilateral triangle. This setup works
pretty well, but the 30° part is fairly informal and so long as the
phantom images and spaciousness are working well, you can have wider or
narrower spreads without much problem. What you definitely have to have
is symmetry, and you must be listening on the median plane.
Loudspeaker Behavior
Ah, yes. The loudspeakers. They are part of the system, arenât they?
What do we need from the loudspeakers themselves? Iâve been working
hard on this question over the past couple of years, and have some
suggestions, as you can probab
|
|
|
|
| Re: A $400 soundblaster? [message #58513 is a reply to message #58465] |
Mon, 26 September 2005 21:51 |
wmarkwilson
Messages: 114
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ing analog
> recorders during the last 40 or so years. Most of those records were not
> recorded and mixed in 8 hours. 8 months is more typical.
> Dark Side of the Moon took many months to record and mix and has more real
> sheen than any digital pop-rock record Ive ever heard. I am not talking
> about pumped up Air, but true high frequency information.
I understand and appreciate this point. The high frequency
content starts to degrade right away... perhaps not
perceptibly. I agree that there are many wonderful
recordings that have taken years to produce on analog tape,
and still sound amazing. I was simply stressing the need to
transfer sooner during a project, rather than later. If you
have the take you want, why not transfer right away?
>
> It should be obvious that I am a fan of analog tape, and in the absence of
> all-analog recordings, I like to do analog/digital hybrid recordings. I have
> often used my Ampex and Rexox 2 tracks just this way.
> I have also had good luck going the opposite way from the common method.
> I have produced several projects that started digital, that I moved to analog
> 48 just prior to mixing. Actually I worked that way exclusively for several
> years. Next budget that allows I will go that route again.
> Respectfully,
> Gene
I wish I actually had budgets to work with. Sadly,
recording in our city has gone to the basement... both
literally and figuratively. It has been ages since I had a
really good project to work on. I trust you consider
yourself fortunate to be able to work on proje
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Aug 07 11:14:15 PDT 2026
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.12964 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
