Don't do that to me, Andre! For a second there I thought there was a new method out there, and I'd have to re-design everything from scratch! Whew! You sure know how to make a guy sweat... :) ( Maybe you SHOULD patent that, before someone else does! ) - Stuart -I just created Next Generation RFZ© to make it sound fancy and marketing savvy.
Exterior wall concept
Originally posted at johnlsayers.com, topic 15096.
What sort of minimum size is required for the diffusive room?Strictly control rooms with RFZ. Mixing rooms with Next Generation RFZ© design. That being RFZ concepts with fully diffusive surfaces and ISD accomplished by room size. I just created Next Generation RFZ© to make it sound fancy and marketing savvy. The former provides more accuracy and the latter more ambiance.
i was going to name mine "Apathetic Room Response" (ARR)™ but realized that didn't (pun intended) resonate too well. in general, i prefer an RFZ-like approach. how that is achieved depends on the space available...
Groan!!!! :) Seriously, I agree with everyone else: RFZ is the way to go, until someone comes up with something that is demonstrably better. Of the various rooms I've been in, RFZ really does give you the most neutral, pleasant environment for mixing. It just sounds "right", IMHO. - Stuart -but realized that didn't ... resonate too well.
Don't you get tired of walking on water? vaguely fitZYour question is nebulous.
Might i respectfully ask that unless this is a friendly inside jab that you refrain from any personal combat on this thread. Go ahead and use the PM function if you have a problem with someone. But feel free to contribute to the threads topic if you have anything constructive to say. Thanks.Don't you get tired of walking on water? vaguely fitZYour question is nebulous.
Well said, seaweed. Thank you.
- Stuart -
Andre brings much to each and every thread/discussion he is involved in...sure it looks like he is a kind-of know-it-all...guess what...he doesn't draw pretty pictures...so he has to bring some knowledge to the table:) Be thankful he is around as I am thankful for having all you knowledgeable guys around. low man on the totem pole...Don't you get tired of walking on water? vaguely fitZYour question is nebulous.
Ok guys. I respectfully offer my apology to Andre. My only defense is I have a problem with what "appears" as condencending dialog. Perhaps Andre doesn't see it that way, and for all intents and purposes, it really wasn't my place to judge. However, if someone replies with that "tone" to one of my posts on other forums..well, I won't put up with it. But here, I will refrain from responding this way in the future.
And btw guys, of course I know Andre brings a LOT to the table, vs me who only draws "pretty pictures" as you call it. I only use "pretty pictures" to help illustrate concepts that are being discussed. Maybe I should refrain from that as well, as it appears that some here do not place any value my skill sets. Anyway, again, my apology for injecting my viewpoint into this thread.
fitZ
FitZ:
Your style is well known to me and other regulars on this board. I take your comments with that in mind. SIGNIFICANTLY, you did not provide any usefull information regarding Seaweed's the question.
Others:
Thanks for your kind remarks. We all have our styles in our writings and posts we decide to respond to. The best I can say is that I am I, and to write in any other manner would be disrespectful to readers of the threads.
Andre
For the Next Generation RFZ© ? ~130 m³, consistent with the ITU recommendation for listening rooms. Key things being good LWH ratios and an 11' ceiling. It would have a nominal reverb time ~20% longer than the usual reverb time equation indicates. The NARAS multi-channel doc gives a good summary of physical requirements. AndreWhat sort of minimum size is required for the diffusive room?Strictly control rooms with RFZ. Mixing rooms with Next Generation RFZ© design. That being RFZ concepts with fully diffusive surfaces and ISD accomplished by room size. I just created Next Generation RFZ© to make it sound fancy and marketing savvy. The former provides more accuracy and the latter more ambiance.
Thank you, very civilized of you. If i have a problem with someone they will hear about it, Thanks, but no need to worry about me. I look forward to some of your illustrations.Ok guys. I respectfully offer my apology to Andre. My only defense is I have a problem with what "appears" as condencending dialog. Perhaps Andre doesn't see it that way, and for all intents and purposes, it really wasn't my place to judge. However, if someone replies with that "tone" to one of my posts on other forums..well, I won't put up with it. But here, I will refrain from responding this way in the future. And btw guys, of course I know Andre brings a LOT to the table, vs me who only draws "pretty pictures" as you call it. I only use "pretty pictures" to help illustrate concepts that are being discussed. Maybe I should refrain from that as well, as it appears that some here do not place any value my skill sets. Anyway, again, my apology for injecting my viewpoint into this thread. fitZ
I would like the ceiling to be at least 12 feet, i have up to ~18' strait across the flat and another 2 over that in a peak. It says in the NARAS paper "No two room dimensions should be equal. Preferably, all three dimensions should vary by well-known ratios such that the low-frequency nodes generated in the three axes of a rectangular model are spread uniformly throughout the low three to four octaves. The ceiling height ideally should be greater than 11 feet." How are these dimensions for a starting place?.......H-15' W-17.1' L-20.85' (1x1.14x1.39) This allows for 5 feet at the peak(down the long center of the room) for trapping. Is that enough? What are we looking for as the lowest frequency to trap in the CR? 5 feet gets me a quarter wave length of about 55hz right?For the Next Generation RFZ© ? ~130 m³, consistent with the ITU recommendation for listening rooms. Key things being good LWH ratios and an 11' ceiling. It would have a nominal reverb time ~20% longer than the usual reverb time equation indicates. The NARAS multi-channel doc gives a good summary of physical requirements. AndreWhat sort of minimum size is required for the diffusive room?
Sepmeyer 1! One of the best in the book. :)How are these dimensions for a starting place?.......H-15' W-17.1' L-20.85' (1x1.14x1.39)
Peak??? so you have an angled ceiling? Then ratios are out the window... they only apply to rectangular rooms. If your room is non-rectangular then you cannot really use the normal tools for calculating modal response.This allows for 5 feet at the peak(down the long center of the room)
Yes and no. You are assuming that all sound hits your traps normal to the surface: very little does. Most of it comes in and much higher angles, and therefore affects longer waves. Spacing the absorption away from the wall / ceiling also helps. - Stuart -What are we looking for as the lowest frequency to trap in the CR? 5 feet gets me a quarter wave length of about 55hz right?
I was thinking a false ceiling with the correct angles to deflect the highs and mids at around 15' and bass trapping in the corners and ceiling(above the 15'), as from what i understand lows are omni directional. But perhaps i misunderstand the directionality of the lows?Sepmeyer 1! One of the best in the book. :)How are these dimensions for a starting place?.......H-15' W-17.1' L-20.85' (1x1.14x1.39)Peak??? so you have an angled ceiling? Then ratios are out the window... they only apply to rectangular rooms. If your room is non-rectangular then you cannot really use the normal tools for calculating modal response.This allows for 5 feet at the peak(down the long center of the room)Yes and no. You are assuming that all sound hits your traps normal to the surface: very little does. Most of it comes it and much higher angles, and therefore affects longer waves. Spacing the absorption away from the wall / ceiling also helps. - Stuart -What are we looking for as the lowest frequency to trap in the CR? 5 feet gets me a quarter wave length of about 55hz right?
Dang, I wonder why my old mono John Lee Hooker records sound SOOOOOOOO good...the studios he recorded in were built WAAAAAAAAAAY before all this stuff. :mrgreen:For the Next Generation RFZ© ? ~130 m³, consistent with the ITU recommendation for listening rooms. Key things being good LWH ratios and an 11' ceiling. It would have a nominal reverb time ~20% longer than the usual reverb time equation indicates. The NARAS multi-channel doc gives a good summary of physical requirements.
Lows are not directional, sure, in the sense that they wrap around objects that are much smaller than themselves, but the wave fronts still travel and expand in the same way as all sound waves. So most of them will hit the absorption at an angle somewhat less than 90°, and thus will take a longer path through the absorption, which is good but also partially invalidates the "1/4 rule of thumb". That rule is only true for waves normal to the surface, and for absorption mounted directly on the surface. About your ceiling angle: Yes, it can be angled to help direct reflections away from your mix position, but you can't really do that with a peak down the center-line. The normal way to do that is to start with the ceiling lower down at the front of the room, and angle it up at about 12° or more, so it is higher at the rear of the room. - Stuart -I was thinking a false ceiling with the correct angles to deflect the highs and mids at around 15' and bass trapping in the corners and ceiling(above the 15'), as from what i understand lows are omni directional. But perhaps i misunderstand the directionality of the lows?
Seaweed asked for opinions on preferred control room designs. I provided mine. He asked for further detail, which I provided in my post that you quoted. He did not ask about live rooms. Please be productive in your posts. AndreDang, I wonder why my old mono John Lee Hooker records sound SOOOOOOOO good...the studios he recorded in were built WAAAAAAAAAAY before all this stuff. :mrgreen:For the Next Generation RFZ© ? ~130 m³, consistent with the ITU recommendation for listening rooms. Key things being good LWH ratios and an 11' ceiling. It would have a nominal reverb time ~20% longer than the usual reverb time equation indicates. The NARAS multi-channel doc gives a good summary of physical requirements.
Seaweed:
You may find the attached document of value in understanding various conrol room philosophies, their origins, and evoloution.
Interesting read .... Thanks for the article Andre !
:)
Hell Andre, if you would have called fitZ an over bearing forum hog, I would have taken issue with that too:)
You are a talented man fitZ....your seem to look until your sick of it, so to speak.:) Then you shoot yourself in the foot and take away from your abilities by poking at those that are your peers like maybe they are either not as good as they say...or you are not qualified to say it in the first place, but do:)
It's always a question of balance for me...but thank you for being here, and where ever you are these days, with less descension, you would be an asset here.
Good times. Maybe post before the liqueur, please consider what is being discussed and then post regarding that topic. BTW, I think my old 50's recordings are some of the best too. But Like Andre said, we are discussing control rooms, so how does the above apply?Dang, I wonder why my old mono John Lee Hooker records sound SOOOOOOOO good...the studios he recorded in were built WAAAAAAAAAAY before all this stuff. :mrgreen:For the Next Generation RFZ© ? ~130 m³, consistent with the ITU recommendation for listening rooms. Key things being good LWH ratios and an 11' ceiling. It would have a nominal reverb time ~20% longer than the usual reverb time equation indicates. The NARAS multi-channel doc gives a good summary of physical requirements.
You are a fine Canadian.Seaweed: You may find the attached document of value in understanding various control room philosophies, their origins, and evolution.
I guess what i don't get then is why cannot a lightweight false ceiling be built, if we are not deflecting lows does it matter if it isn't massive, the lows escape into the cavity in the peak where they are trapped. No?Lows are not directional, sure, in the sense that they wrap around objects that are much smaller than themselves, but the wave fronts still travel and expand in the same way as all sound waves. So most of them will hit the absorption at an angle somewhat less than 90°, and thus will take a longer path through the absorption, which is good but also partially invalidates the "1/4 rule of thumb". That rule is only true for waves normal to the surface, and for absorption mounted directly on the surface. About your ceiling angle: Yes, it can be angled to help direct reflections away from your mix position, but you can't really do that with a peak down the center-line. The normal way to do that is to start with the ceiling lower down at the front of the room, and angle it up at about 12° or more, so it is higher at the rear of the room. - Stuart -I was thinking a false ceiling with the correct angles to deflect the highs and mids at around 15' and bass trapping in the corners and ceiling(above the 15'), as from what i understand lows are omni directional. But perhaps i misunderstand the directionality of the lows?
correct, using a lightweight ceiling can help by letting the LF escape into other spaces where it can be trapped or simply release. one key point is to make sure this approach is used for both the CR and live room is to separate those spaces somewhat to avoid bypassing your other isolation - this includes considering if you allow it to escape outside...