Why This $200k Room Did Not Work - www.AcousticFields.com
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2024
- ⭐ Acoustic Treatment Build Plans: www.acousticfi...
📉 Free Room Analysis: www.acousticfi...
🎓 eBooks & Forum: www.acousticfi...
- - Read more about this project here: www.acousticfi...
Our client spent 200,000.00 in this room. He spent two weeks listening to the room when it was built and treated. He walked out and never went back. He locked the door and now uses it for storage space. What went wrong? How can the design miss so many requirements for good sound quality that is consistent and predictable? How can it be fixed?. Let’s examine the design technologies used and see if we can discover what went wrong and more importantly, how can we fix it keeping in mind 200K was already spent.
#audiophile #acoustics #hometheater
Respect to the room owner for not making himself believe that the room sounded good when it didn't.
So true - kudos to the room owner and smart commenter
Very big kudos. Honest appropriate approach to application and appraisal. It’s not easy to spend big and then admit defeat.
The owner of this room is my hero. Never fall in love with the pitch. Love the Music.
My guess is that the sound was simply so bad that it ruined the music.
Regardless of the amount spent, for someone to stop listening in their designated listening room, the sound must be complete shit.
Shouldve buy headphone
I nearly spat up my beer when you said that the cabinets were empty.
im a noob...what is supposed to have been in them? or maybe im just misunderstanding..
Thank You for breaking down what went wrong in such a room, Dennis. I think we learn more from mistakes (ours or someone else's) than successes. Hope you are doing OK now...
That room looks like a rich guy's version of a DIY home studio with all the walls and ceiling completely covered in black acoustic foam!
Looking forward to see what you do to fix the room.
Yes, the rich mans egg carton lol!
Bright red, and bright orange egg carton foam is also a great look........................................................NOT!
Is it not good to cover your whole room? I got the poor mans version lol.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge with us. You've saved me a (small) fortune by helping me avoid costly errors. Nothing at this level, but just in general.
Every time I spend time here I learn. Great channel.
For the ‘normal’ person that just listens to, or maybe records, loud music (I’m one), I tried some very basic DIY sound treatment, I did take some time to research placement etc. and even my low cost meagre attempt made a huge difference! I didn’t spend much and I really believe it was far more effective than any money I’ve spent on improving my equipment. I’d love to hear one of these properly treated rooms with top notch gear.
A, Take the improvements you have experienced times 100.
This is fascenating. I've built a few home recording studios in various garages etc, so I've studied this stuff a little bit, but you guys are on a whole other level. Subscribed and thank you😁
I can't wait for the follow up
The Client sold up and moved into a RV Motorhome.
@@pqrstzxerty1296, I don't expect we'll ever see a follow up.
@@pqrstzxerty1296 😆
Checking in
Why no followup?
Would love to see owners reaction after Denis and his crew does all the fixing )
At first they probably just went with the most expensive quote (which obviously = the best lol)
Great discussion on absorption version diffusion.
Also the discussion on not absorbing away vocal energy bands when the room is to be used for voice.
Good observations on the ceiling Shroeder diffusers.
You talk about prime number theory and acoustics. Have you discussed this previously ? Particularly the basis for why/how it works.
Best
George
Dennis, you are such a credit to the industry, I have learned a tremendous amount from you and also for the past year and a half been benefiting from you selfless sharing of knowledge with me on the phone. I hope someday I can swing actually hiring you! Anyway, Huge thanks to you.
Best,
Scott
Well said.
This is great advice. LEDE design works. The area around the speakers should be live with some absorption in case where it is too lively. Diffusion should only be used on surfaces that are NOT in the direct and first reflected path of sound between the listener and the speakers. Diffusion by its nature is intended to mess up directionality of sound (this removes information like stereo image). So diffusion is great where you want to remove parasitic reflections that clutter imaging (like a wall close behind the listener’s head, low ceiling directly above the listeners head etc). Tuned Resonators or bass traps belong only close to corners which is where they are most effectively reducing the build up of low frequency energies near these triple boundaries. Acoustics is simple physics. Also a totally dead room sounds awful. George Sabine studied this and appropriate R60 decays are critical to good sound. Rock music needs more damping. Classical music can be enjoyed in a more reflective environment. Larger rooms can have a higher R60 than smaller rooms. An R60 of 0.4 is pretty good for a 3000 - 5000 cu ft space.
The corners of a room are not the issue for low frequency unwanted pressure issues. The total wall surface area is producing the issue. You must treat the complete wall.
I've been making records now for over 20 years and I cannot stress enough the importance of treating a room it's imperative absolutely imperative cannot be overstated
One would think that a varaible as large as the room would always be considered in the sonic chain. Its always amazing to me how little importance is granted to the room. When it is considered for treatment, most approaches we see are completely wrong. The poor room doesn't stand a chance.
Ten thousand quid on magic mains cables and not a penny on room acoustics. How often do we see this?
I have a small media room so I don't have much flexibility with the placement of my treatments but I do quite enjoy the sound with diffusers placed at ear level on the side walls. I place absorption right above my diffusion (subwoofers block the wall below the diffusion) and around the room.
J, Using absorption and diffusion together is a nice combination. It takes a lot more tuning effort, but the sonic improvement is well worth the effort.
Really interested in before and after measurements
My wish is one day to afford the equipment that I want and then get you guys to do my room
Best wishes on your Quest. Gear comes and goes. When you can start with the room first. Good works until you can get great. Have fun with it!
headphones are a good way to start, it’s how I started & I will branch out to speakers & iems. not that it may be the absolute best or what you prefer but headphones really are good & are much cheaper than high end speakers
A stereo can still sound really nice in an untreated room. I feel your pain.
D, Yes, especially when there is no other music source.
Yes
David you are 100 percent correct that a stereo can sound really nice in an untreated room, but in a properly treated one it can sound magical and this is all relative to the price of the stereo or the price of the room treatments.
@@sidvicious3129 And that is why I will never treat room. Instead I have good ideas of room size and speaker setup which is best in given conditions so I can tune to it my system And I am going for real sound which is fully magical. because it happens in my room - not in open space like in 100% treated room.
Mikexception , when you mention real sound in a real room, the sound will be real regardless of what you do. It is like buying an expensive Tv and not having it calibrated, you will get a real picture, but the picture won’t be as good as it could be if you had the tv calibrated. One of the biggest reasons for room treatment is because you can’t always pick the space that you have,which is why you try to maximize that space.
It is when you hear a properly treated room is when you can truly respect it, which is the same thing for a properly calibrated tv, they enhance the experience. You are overall correct that you don’t have to do anything and the treatments don’t have to be expensive or elaborate. Carpet and even windows drapes can help along with proper speaker placement. All sound is real, it just depends on how real or better you want to make that experience for you. I believe in never totally ruling things like this out until you have tried them for yourself, it can be eye opening and draw dropping, but I do get your overall point.
Looking forward to seeing how you fix this room !
Any update? I would love to see what you ended up doing and if the owner of the room can make comments on what difference they heard..
This will be a 2021 video project.
Awesome. Cant wait for next follow up vid.
ur lecture makes sense a lot for me thank you, sir
Glad to hear that
Room sound isn't always the enemy. Recordings and playback, totally absent of any sort of reflection or room sound, sound cold and clinical. Imagine listening to your favorite songs in an anechoic chamber versus your bedroom: As it turns out, our brains are accustomed to hearing musical reflections from the environment around us, and when those are nearly or totally absent, it removes a certain character from the listening experience. Some amount of imperfection is usually actually beneficial in my view--especially once we consider that audio engineers spend a good chunk of their mixing sessions ADDING imperfections to perfectly clean audio through saturation, distortion, EQ, analog equipment, tape machines, reverb, etc.
The science of acoustic treatment is to control these reflections and the diffusion in such a way that the room sound doesn't create unpleasant tonal changes, while still leaving enough room sound behind to create a natural recording or listening experience. People who don't understand this often have the impression that room noise is the enemy, and that eliminating it will always improve audio replication. In truth, if the audio experience doesn't coordinate with our body's natural experiential expectations, something will always feel discordant.
I'm personally very satisfied with $120 of 2" thick absorption panels, placed only in the reflection hot spots of my room. They made a notable difference and deadened the worst reflections, while still keeping the sound natural. I mix and master audio in my spare time, so accuracy and audio translation is important to me, and the panels, as well as some monitor pads, were just enough to bring my monitors within the same sound profile as my headphones, as well as other audio systems, and that's frankly all I needed. I can listen to audio on them all day and it sounds perfectly fine to me; all of this was accomplished with only a few foam pads. Audio overkill is indeed a thing.
Your bass is still totally mess and out of control, maybe you haven't experienced better?
A 2" deep panel will not provide any lower frequency absorption. It is lie holding up a feather to stop a tornado.
I don't pay anything for my acoustics treatment but I just make sure I organise the soft furnishings and cupboards and shelves etc to kill the reverberation between parallel walls and then the room sounds really good.
So happy I've found this channel. Rare knowledge! Thanks
Glad you enjoy it!
Maybe I missed it but what were the bad qualities of the sound? Absorption diffusion prime numbers. What did it sound like?
R, All those issues will be addressed in the next video. Let's let the client tell us the difference.
Glad I’m not an audiophile. It seems like a mild form of insanity. He’s got a $200k room he doesn’t even use anymore because it sounds THAT bad? Really?
I know. I bet to me, the room would sound incredible. The high end equipment alone must make a huge difference. Being an audiophile is like a curse, nothing is up to their standards
Meanwhile: Genres were discovered in 0-sound-treated childrens bedrooms from like 400€ speaker sets XD
@@kevinr.3542 Ya, because you're not the one spending the money. If you spend $200k on a room, it better sound exactly how you want.
Is there a follow-up to this video out yet? I'm dying to see what steps were taken to solve the issues with the room.
Client passed away from Covid.
@@AcousticFields Oh damn... I'm sorry to hear this.
Is there a link to the review of the room after it was set up correctly? I have been combing through all these videos (very much enjoying them) and I really want to see the outcome. Thanks!
Client passed from Covid.
Does that happen to be a bass trap positioned behind your couch? If so, considering it's situated behind the couch and therefore sitting on the floor. Would one be correct in assuming if it is indeed a bass trap, is it likely to still be helping out the low end?
This room treatment lacked the "horsepower", rate of absorption, to treat the amplitude (strength) of the unwanted pressure issues.
REspect to this uploader, the owner of the room, and to at least most of the other commenters (I haven't read all of them, but I'll throw some out to all of you anyway)...
In audio production, you always have to be thinking about your production value. A room that's designed for the initial production and mixdown won't always work for mastering, and a room designed for one kind of music might be all wrong for another. I wouldn't reccord an orchestra in a small room with mics on all the instruments, nor would I put a very crystal clear and bright singer in a large hall and record a fusion of hip hop and r&b; ok bad example, I might do it, but I'd also dub a session in a small contained room and mix the two together where they fit. The point is, when you design anything you do, you first need to have some clarity of your goal, so that you have a few of the final details laid out, and the pathway to get to those details. Doing this will let you know if anything you wish to achieve is in conflict with anything else you wish to achieve, so you can replan around that and either make room for both or give one up in favor of another.
This video is a great example. Everything was done overkill, and the room didn't work. The problem is simple enough: He built the treatment before he built the room. That's it. He reversed the logic. Oops. Well at least he got a good closet out of it, right?
If I build a room, listen in it for a while, hate something about it, then treat for that, especially when I can TREAT the problem in an economical and mobile fashion (one in which I can increase, decrease, add or remove the treatment easily), I have, dollar for dollar, exponentially greater value in that treatment than in a room that needs to be completely reconstructed every time I mix a different genre or move my desk so I can put in a new APU tower or screen. Granted, mastering engineers usually want something very close to perfection for a main room, as it allows them to really hear the differences when they adjust. But, the average listener will rarely have access to that, so most have rooms for listening in that emulate common listening environments, or speakers that are "tuned" (eq'd) for such environments. Some have multiple rooms for different genres and styles, as they can afford it. If you have one room to work with, sometimes the "cheap-sheets" method is the best way to go (using towels as heavy drapes, acoustic panels; pillows also, bookcases for diffusion).
That doesn't mean that you don't cut into a few walls here and there... ...If you can, design the walls a bit, but don't treat the room before you actually build and listen to it. Building a room around the treatment rarely, if ever at all, gets any kind of a useable result.
What do you think of Amon Tobin's studio? It looks like wavy quadratic diffusers, I'm not sure what the philosophy is since it seems pretty unique.
I am not familiar with that studio.
I love music, and have made my fair share of it, but even if I were rich this would be so unnecessary for me, the average producer, or even a basic audiophile.
The client might get something out of it that I don't. I just don't understand what more there is to extract out of raw audio with some mid-tier monitors and some basic room treatment.
It's impressive to say the least, but massive overkill for me.
Well said. This is just some rich guy's folly. More power to him if he enjoys spending his cash like this.....but to me it seems like wretched excess.
some people just have too much money
Totally not knocking the man's setup or wealth shaming (if that's a thing). I mean, I'd definitely be curious to hear what I might be missing with a setup like that.
I think I just might be missing the objective of what hardcore audiophiles are looking to experience. Whether it be a certain characteristic of a speaker type, amplification, or just a sweet spot in the EQ. I just don't know what it is. I guess I have never been curious enough.
@@IpfxTwin it definitely sounds like you're knocking it. I can't say how far I'd go if I had this kind of money, but I don't so I won't knock it.
@Aek0z As a studio engineer, I can confirm you are correct. This room, and whatever the next room to replace it will be, is bordering on voodoo. There is *absolutely nothing* to extract out of the master tracks, that any room will or will not "take away" based on it's design. Master recordings are are master recordings. Even the gear in the studios themselves (which is the first generation creation point for the recording itself) aren't held to standards of this micro-scientific level. So there is nothing IN the recordings that was placed with the scientific care that is being sought in these type of utopian playback rooms.
Yes, if one has the internal ego to fuel, some pretentious belief/faith their ears are hearing or missing something on a microscopic level that 'only they are seasoned enough to perceive' , and has the money to burn... then rooms like this are a snake oil just waiting to be sold/purchased. The audiophile world is AGHAST in snake oil.
Having been in many a recording studio, seeing playback rooms like this makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever. If the original recordings weren't recorded in such an environment to start with, including all the gear at levels of peak audiophile voodoo (at all steps of the recording process)... then playback on this pricey stuff, in these pricey rooms, is doing nothing really measurable. Just like $10,000 speaker cables. Just like $100,000 amplifiers. The master recordings weren't even made with this stuff, nor any care in production for those levels of voodoo in the first place.
I get it - scientifically for playback purposes, gear and a room like this provide "the pinnacle of transparency" and "the utopian minimum of color is being added or taken away" ... but the difference between a $10,000 listening room being 99.99% accurate enough for discerning human ears, and spending $250,000 more for that final theoretical 0.01% ... well, it's a free country I guess :)
It's a 'seasoned ears' claim (and a pretentious one) I simply don't buy. We're all humans limited by our human ears. There is nothing the playback/customer has that the original studio engineer(s) didn't have when it comes to hearing. I agree there is some kind of internal ego / rich guy / dick measuring aspect to all of this. If ya got the money to burn, go for it. For that level of spending, you could have live musicians come play jazz in your house every weekend. Live. None of those darned amplifiers and speakers as middlemen. :)
i guess it depends on what the user wants ... a room like Carnegie Hall , where a whisper can be heard from a hundred feet or a 'Dead Room' with zero resonance , where you couldn't hear someone on fire from outside the room (lol) ..... then hope the user 'knows' what he/she wants or somewhere in between ... lol
J, I have been in CH. I don't know about that whisper but the room does sound good all through the audience area.
@@AcousticFields Love the Crows Nest
Absolutely wonderful and informative video!! 👍☘👍
Glad you enjoyed it
He reminds me of Kubayashi from The Usual Suspects.
WOW.Thanks Dennis.
Very welcome
Thank you. Has the follow-up video been issued ?
Client has passed due to covid.
I'm no expert but... Most people listen to their music in the car or through headphones or through crappy speakers etc.. Is all these highly expensive sound room mastering areas really worth it?
No, for most people it's overkill, basic sound dampening panels are enough just to make room not too boomy or reflective
There are good cheap headphones, like tin audio t2 or blon 03, you would be amazed how good cheap things have gotten now.
like anything its diminishing returns. but if you truly have a passion for something you want the best you can afford. most people would be happy to drive a nice bmw or merc but if you love driving and have a real passion for it this just isnt enough and you notice things other people just dont care about
Yingle That’s like saying most people eat junk food so why get a expensive kitchen.
- Here’s my take on it. When you do invest in good gear and you know that 50% of what you hear is defined by the room acoustics, would you address the acoustics or not?
“Resolution” is the goal here. If you see something that looks really good on a billboard, you know it’s going to look good as a book cover, a postcard, etc. But the opposite is not true.
If you can hear the subtle differences in sound through the entire spectrum of frequencies, and you can make that sound good, you’re almost guaranteed that any other system you play it back on (that isn’t terrible on its own of course), it’s going to sound good.
That being said, this is overkill and I can’t imagine anyone has good enough ears to require this much scientific accuracy and expense.
So yes, the room is very important, but I’m really not sure it wouldn’t be far beyond the “diminishing returns” threshold in this example.
So interesting and informative!
I SAVE a lot of money now. Stopped listening to music 12 years ago!
M, That is not an option for those of us that have been listening for 30 - 40 years.
haha. out of curiosity why would you watch this video then?
@@slavesforging5361 Well, I was "curious" too, what kind of morons would spend $200K for a sound room. BTW, there is NO better sound than SILENCE! Why fill your mind with other peoples trash?
@@markypolo55 ahhhhhh... I guess curiosity really did kill the cat then! Lol. After all, why fill your head with TH-cam's noise? (Said cheekily).
Though I wouldn't call someone who spends that much on a music room a moron per se. Though a moronic life choice, I would simply call them normal. Pretending money is good for something... now that's funny! And completely normal.
I like to listen to other people's trash. It's a great way to gain insight.
Well yeah, most of You Tube is garbage! Unlike music though, there are very good sources for educational information. Just think, if the idiot referred in this video had watched this one, he/she may have saved $200K. Me personally, before spending that kind of money, I would have done some RESEARCH first!
The way you are getting all emotional, I would think it was YOU that pissed away $200K.
That's sad. For both the client and the original constructor.
Achieving quality sound within a room is by design. We gurantee all our designs to perform as specified.
The real problem is that there are too many diffusers and bass traps of the same type. Having those diffusers in the whole ceiling, front and back walls gives low reverb time on highs in comparison with mids.
Also with bass traps there is nothing wrong in a low amount of absorbing material inside. They are rezonators, not wide absorbers. A bad thing is their number in this room, because there are too many of them.
M, You are wasting valuable space if you don't use an interior cabinet fill material.
The *real* problem is that people liked your comment without even knowing anything about acoustics. In all honesty, having diffusers of the same type is what you want, but *placement, design and size* is what really matters, in addition, there seems to be a total lack of absorption, you need something to control the sound in problematic areas, but I could literally go on and on lol.
Cool insights, I’m curious what the custom qrd design was going for, maybe a certain musical scale, harmonic set, or sacred tuning. Questions I’ve been curious about myself in the engineering theory behind qrd diffusor tuning.
When using diffusion, you must fisrt be able to satisfy many critical numbers such as room decay rates along with many others. Quadratic diffusers have a frequency range that you must match to the usage of the room, the distance from diffuser to ears and space availibility.
I used all skyline diffuser in my sounds room 12X28 feet only 2 on each side wall the instruments just very present and so realistic try to removed them and listening again there was no feel can’t listen without them 7 onto the front wall 18”X18” each
Diffusion is a great technology and once heard never forgotten.
Some home audio integrator laughed himself all the way to the bank..
great video! what are the 5 rigid criteria you mentioned?
th-cam.com/video/fB3EsOqYZ6A/w-d-xo.html
I have a relative who built a room for stereo listening. After he insisted that i listen, i told him one speaker sounded off. In fact, he reversed the cables on the inputs . How can you be an audiophile but not hear that?
Maybe the improvement over old room was so great they still on a Honeymoon Ship. Just a thought. Just a question are you a musician? Even amateurs will nail things non players never notice. Glad you could help him out. Peace!
Thanks a lot! Brilliant!
You're welcome!
Was there a follow up video for this fix? If so could you please send the link as I can’t seem to find it? 👍
Client has passed away.
Very sad, thank you for letting me know
All I want is a set of modified GR Research NX-Oticas, dual H frame OB subs, and Parasound Preamp/maybe some tubes. Awesome to see a follow up.
I'm really hoping to see the follow up video on this.
I was going to make very similar comments when I saw the pictures of the room. But you beat me to it.
I have a burning question.. what if you put absorbsion behind the wall. For a reccording or acoustic set op. Please can only a learned person reply 😁
J, Low-frequency absorption can be built into the walls. www.acousticfields.com/carbon-absorber-wall/
love this, i think its important to know that money is not the solution, knowledge in acoustics is the answer and experience, the customer can save a lot of money if he use pro to help him do the job, + diffusion is a complex concept mainly i think! because its involve objective and subjective elements(psycho acoustics and hrtf), phase, time domain, amplitude, angle of accident are all more complex then we think
D, Diffusion is not that complicated to apply successfully. Experience is the key to using it. We have been using it for 30 years and know what to use where and for each usage. We know the errors because we have made them.
"...use rates and levels (of absorption) that are conducive for music and voice, not noise. A lot of this stuff out there's for noise- 'lets absorb as much as we can per square foot'. That's not what you do for music and voice. Once you do that for music and voice parts of the music and voice are lost"
This is probably pretty basic advice, but for a beginner such as myself this is awesome. As someone looking to treat my home studio for the first time I think there's a trap you can fall into when you learn that sound reflections can create a bad mixing environment where you then try to make a room that's too dead thinking that it's making the room more accurate when in fact you're actually removing important information for critical listening.
Its not the reflections that create the bad sound environment. Reflections are a necessary part of listening. It is time signature of those reflections that must be managed correctly for music and voice.
Solid advice - thanks
Glad it was helpful!
I bet the toe-in really changes things for the worse. I found annoying constructive interference in the highs on my system. Set them parallel and everything sounded so much more natural.
It is always advisable to try different set up options. Everyone's preference in presentation value is so different you must try different options to determine what is best for you.
I studied physik and i am a classical musician, strings and baroque. I very much liked to read your comments. It is a different world. What I look for is interpretation. This is a matter of brain and craftmanship. You can find it in the instruments and in the concert halls.
My equipment is partly selfmade and not expensive. Only for organ music I like to hear sound from behind me. This has not to be the original sound, just any reasonable sound made out of a stereo record.
I like to feel the bowings in my right hand when listening, it works if speakers are not so bad. It doesn't depend on the room.
We have a completely different style of listening to music!
th-cam.com/video/l-L3YmzOJnQ/w-d-xo.html
You see glass in the little room! The lady has a lot of chances to make mistakes. She is pretty good. The tuning of the harpsichord is interesting. This is not tempered but nearby which is important for the sound of this music.
You can not fix such mistakes with better speakers.
Everything depends on the room. It accounts for a large percentage of what you hear.
@@AcousticFields Then listen to bar 1. Small notes are too fast. You cannot identify them. Afterwards the pause is correct.
And now show me a room that makes this mistake to no mistake.
@@martinh1277 All notes can be heard regardless of their time signature if you get enough of the room out of the way of them.
@@AcousticFields But you cannot understand them. At those time it was forbidden to play that way. They called it bad taste.
Show me a room that makes good taste out of bad taste.
Sound diffusion, sound absorption , sound redistribution, quadratic diffusion, resonators vs sound proofing or reduction: What is that? Do you have a separate video that discusses these things for noobs like me. Or video's keeping sound out or in
Our you tube channel has videos that cover each one of those issues you mention.
As you know room proportion is also important. I once had a client call me because his room did not sound right. Turned out the room dimensions were 16' X 16' X 8', half a cube. Also agree with, keep it simple. That room is a mess. The huge number of variations also makes it much harder to predict the outcome. Helmholtz resonators don't "absorb" (they resonate energy...of course) so that was a terrible idea on the ceiling. Good idea on the diffusion either side of the listening position.works well. How did the room turn out? Would love to see a follow up video.
Would love to see the follow up video
looking forward for the follow up video!
G, Soon. Room modules are all installed. Waiting for the electronics to be set up.
Is there a follow up video?
Client is recovering from medical issues.
nice video, thanks for uploading
The product in the room, that dont work, is it svanå SMT? ( its a swedish company)
Looks like it. The question is who did this acoustic treatment, because there are companys whitch buy SMT products and makes acoustic treatment by them selwes.
@@WhiteToss Exactly. Its not the products fault the room sounds bad. Whomever designed the room made some mistakes on the placement of the treatments.
I'm a studio engineer over 25 years. Diffusion is really just broken up reflection. By allowing large reflective areas it's attempting to help make your room sound a little more wet and natural than what you'd get with extremely high absorption. The many surfaces break up the single surface into many to try and make that reflection sound good. Truthfully it's just a little reverb. That's fine in a RECORDING space if that's what you intend. If that's the case the listener WILL get that from his speakers. As a studio engineer I hate reflection even from diffusors in a control room. You are influencing what you're hearing. In the case of a recording studio that's not what you want. You want absorption in your control room to hear the speakers and nothing but the speakers. In a audiophile listening room at least what I would want is the most true to the speakers experience as I could get. That's what the creators of the music intended. If they wanted you to hear more reverb they'd have added it.
Can a little extra liveness from short reverb help some music, sure. You are just making a sonic decision though beyond what the producers intended and know that it may sound bad alot of the time. In the room pictured with it's rediculous amount of reflections it may sound really cool for recording a solo instrument in, but here's the problem: A recording of a solo instrument is probably going to have plenty of reverb in it if the producers thought that sounded good. If you try and play that back in this crazy room it will just have even more, far beyond what sounds good.
H, Most engineers we work with do not want the rear wall time delayed reflection in their mixes. Two dimensional rear wall diffusion will accomplish that task without any artifacts.
@@AcousticFields I didn't mean pure undiffused reflection. I meant absorption on the rear wall and pretty much every where else. At least 70% coverage mostly evenly spread out usually half of them 4 inches thick and the other half 2. A little more concentration in the corners. I certainly wasn't saying nothing on the back wall. For me the idea of a big "good sounding" reflector in a listening room is preposterous. I don't care who's doing it. The only thing it could possibly help with is making your conversations with people in the room feel a little more natural and less "airlock space vacuum" feeling.
Are there follow ups to this video? If so, Title, please.
Client has passed due to covid.
Shows you that money cant beat science and experience
Why would someone want a room that only makes music sound good in certain genre? Shouldn’t good sound be good?
TeensierPython - generally the more money you spend the specific something gets. Million dollar race cars can’t really pull a lot of weight. No one is playing heavy metal on a $10,000 concert classical guitar. A $300 electric guitar is more suited for that.
Orlando Roman - not buying it. I don’t think a race car comparison is the same thing. The audio equipment should be invisible and be able to reproduce anything.
@@TeensierPython No because different genres of music operate in completely different frequencies. The kind of qualities that someone who is looking to play hip hop or drum and bass (big loud bass that you feel) are completely different than the priorities of someone trying to listen to a symphony (crisp accurate high frequencies).
Different materials react differently to different frequencies and trying to create a room that treats all frequencies perfectly equally will lead to compromises.
@@SpencerLemay A linear response is a linear response no matter what. The audible frequency spectrum is all the same in every song. If the response is perfectly flat, it will sound "perfect" on any song. If you boost bass for drum and bass as you say, you already altered the quality of the sound, even if you think it's in a good way.
Spencer Lemay - nope. Ridiculous. If you like classical music it will have every frequency of music. From high winds and lows from some of the biggest drums and brass instruments. So if you want good good classical it should work with every genre. I think the audio community needs an overhaul. It’s absolutely ridiculous with these claims.
Is there a follow-up video?
Client has passed away.
I am sorry. @@AcousticFields
honestly sometimes some exotic speakers are just too ridiculously big. I mean, take any 4 floor standers and slather blue tack on top of a pair then place the other set up side down on top
boom $xx, xxx speaker. I have a set of 10 thousand dollar floor standers but I found myself preferring the sound of the ls50s and when it came time to get surrounds I decided on the 3001SE EGGs due to their ability to play down too around 50 hz while the newer model could only play down to around 75hz. I figured the quality of the sound wouldn't matter as much since it was meant to be listened to aimed at the back of my head but to my shock they actually sounded BETTER than the ls50s. sure the ls50s had much more aggressive bass but the range they played in common, the 3001SEs sounded obviously more open transparent uncolored and most importantly holographic while the ls50s by comparison sounded receded and flat.
so I ended up selling the ls50s and replacing them with the 3001SEs of course I'd go with smaller and better.
it did get me curious if I were to mod the ls50s to have a more rounded internal cabinet and then coated it with graphene like the ACE tech unique to the the 3001SEs would that give the ls50s the more holographic bigger sound? but I suspect its the synergy how every element of that speaker was designed from scratch for that one research project which evbetjslly trickled up to the blade.
Damn it, I don’t want to wait!
H, The solution is our new modules. They are 24" x 24" x 12" d and weigh 75 lbs each. They have thicker carbon filters to make better response for 60 and 80 Hz. We have ACDA-10, ACDA-12, and QD-13 diffusion modules. We will stack them to "build" each new wall. Remember, we have left the rear wall quadratic sequence. That will have more meaning as we work through the fix.
I will say I really enjoyed the comments for this video.
Glad you enjoyed it
Listening to this guys talk about walls feels like i'm listening to a doctor telling me that i only have 3 months to live. So serious.
We take room acoustics seriously. When you work at the highest room resolution as we do, every surface area has an impact on the presentation value.
Was there a follow up video, I could not find it?
Client suffering from long term effects of covid.
OK serious question now. On a budget perspective in an apartment I only rent... Isn't it better for me to get a decent pair of headphones than it is to get 5000€ speakers I probably can't use properly anyways because I can't shift around the room for them?
Headphone sound and room sound are drastically different. You must decide which is more important for your usage.
Absolutely.
You can get what there is to get pretty much by sitting close to your speakers and eqing the bass correctly. Trying to get :"soundstage" at distance is not going to reproduce anything that is actually on the recording--and few of them have any kind of 'soundstage' that means anything anyway, And high resolution electronics---if you believe in that, well.....
R, Creating a "sound stage" is part recording and part room and set up. Nothing in stereo reproduction in a critical listening environment stands by itself. Everything depends on everything else.
@@AcousticFields But using the room like that, as opposed to getting the room out of the system, is just playing games with sound effects. Why would a sensible person want to hear effects not on the recording? People can spend money on whatever they like, but this seems to me pursuit of a chimera.
@@robertgreene2684 You want resolution of all source sound. To achieve that goal, you must minimize room sound. The room will actually prevent you from hearing sounds recorded in the source.
@@AcousticFields I surely agree with that, that one wants to hear what is recorded But this is a quite different thing from using the room to create a "soundstage'. Most recordings when reproduced accurately, with no room sound added in, do not in fact have much of anything like a "soundstage" in the audiophile sense. For instance, a close miked solo vocal recording ought to sound like a voice right in front of you, not out in the plane of the speakers (cf Gunther Theile's Gestalt model) "Soundstage" is mostly an artifact of sound coming off the walls of the listening room and generating a spurious sense of space. Out of doors, one hears what is really there, Mostly not a "soundstage:" except with single point or quasi single point microphone technique. And how many of those are there?
Looks like an a echo of chamber. Audio is recorded to allow some room reverb.
C, No, not an echo chamber, just an over designed room.
It's still a cool looking room, very pretty
It takes both form and function to create essence.
Okay the room looks cool, ill give you that. It looks like it was designed for the 70's future.
What is the best way to acoustically isolate a door?
M, What is the frequency and amplitude of your noise issues? Barrier technology is frequency and amplitude dependent.
I can't find the "fix" video.
Nothing yet. Stay tuned.
Where can I find the follow up video?
We are going to contact the client for a follow up.
Same looking forward. Please keep updating.
Ouch!
Truth.
Ouuuuch
It seems like getting it "right" is utterly hopeless and a massive waste of money. I'm trying to figure out how to go about making a basement drum enclosure to prevent neighbors from hearing the noise, and I feel like there's basically no way to acceptably accomplish it, even with lots and lots of cash invested.
You are looking at walls that are 8-12" deep. Wall structure will have to be designed for the frequency and amplitude of the noise.
What’s good materials to use to soundproof your home / party wall ?????
i just subscribed....has the follow-up been released?
I have a small, nearly square room. I currently have two 2’x2’x2” absorption panels behind my 7 inch rear ported monitors and one 4’x2’x4” absorption panel at the center back of my wall. I also have a bookshelf, bed, and padded chair that soak up some sound too. Would diffusion be a good idea for my side reflection points or should I go for more absorption? I have considered putting diffusers behind my speakers and putting the absorption panels on the side walls too. Any thoughts are welcome.
Square rooms = nightmare for acoustics. You should seriously consider relocating.
skrenja don’t have a place to relocate at the moment 😛
S, Square rooms are problematic when it comes to unwanted pressure issues below 200 Hz. Most can be treated. A square room of a certain dimension can be used for voice and some acoustic live options.
You might never get that to sound very good. Square rooms have very strong modes and you need more depth to absorb the lower frequencies so when it’s a small room it’s even worse.
Exteam overkill nearly almost never works as intended, the golden rule for ultra high performance has always been and will always be keep it simple... Nothing is perfect, so it’s about making decisions on what compromises you’re making down the list from most important attributes to least, in that way you maximize your intended goals. Insane sums of money and brute force don’t result in performance either, simple and elegant, are, of course, the most difficult mental exercises, as any fool can throw money and horsepower at a problem...
If we have to start building a room from zero, is there any good proportion to start with? Height, width length? I know then is the right absorption and difusión, but I mean, the best proportion for bass resonance for example, so to speak, Fibonacci's phi golden ratio works?
S, Use the ratios as a starting point. However, you must then allow for an additional 12" to treat the low-frequency issues. Rerun the numbers changing the dimensions by that 12" on every surface area to make sure you still fall within the ideal area.
@@AcousticFields Thank you!
May I ask, if your room doesn't fall within the ratios and you're stupid enough to attempt "a build" regardless, will your diaphragmatic absorbtion need to be bigger then standard, and can you add diffusion to a diaphragmatic absorber to cut down on space?
@Dennis - Have you made a follow-up video for this project?
Not at this time. Client is suffering with covid. Stay tuned.
@@AcousticFields Eagerly awaiting a follow-up video.
Where's the after video on this?
No after. Client passed away from covid.
@@AcousticFields thanks for the quick reply.
@@AcousticFieldsso sad
After watching your video, it is obvious that you don’t understand the SMT concept and how the various modules are designed to work. Allow me to clarify.
1) You claimed that the back wall volume contained a membrane absorber.
In fact: It is a Helmholtz resonator with a volume of approximately 2.5 cubic meter or 88 cubic feet.
2) You referred to each of the side wall modules a "redirection device ".
In fact: The modules are designed to be rotated 360 degrees to give either broadband absorption or broadband diffusion.
3) You claimed that the back wall panel diffusion sequence (behind the sweet spot ) was a problem, but without any proof.
In fact: The psychoacoustic enhanced panel sequence was carefully calculated by an awarded AES life-time member.
4) You claimed that the series of Helmholtz resonators are pipes or tubes which creates phase issues.
In fact: They are called Varitunes ® and are tuneable Helmholtz resonators. There were 24 units ordered for the floor-wall corners and wall-ceiling corners.
The Varitunes ® are well known for their high-efficiency, and are designed to be continuously tuneable between 30-100 Hz. See the video below which demonstrates the tuning process and the broadband effectiveness of a properly tuned Varitune.
th-cam.com/video/GjdACNPLzzg/w-d-xo.html
The installation in the room that was the focus of your video was done in 2009 by a newly formed US company. It’s most unfortunate that SMT did not have the opportunity to tune the backwall HH trap and the 24 Varitunes. It is critical that each HH device be properly tuned within its location.
Below you will find either testimonies or before and after examples which demonstrate the effectiveness of properly located and tuned Varitunes. As passive EQ devices they are highly effective in minimizing room resonance masking effects and serve to level dips and peaks.
diffusor.com/PDF/scania.pdf
diffusor.com/PDF/Scania-2.pdf
www.diffusor.com/PDF/Taipei-HH-before-and-after.pdf
SMT Statements
www.diffusor.com/PDF/SMT-statements.pdf
I have used SMT diffusion panels in all broadcast och music studios and control rooms for years, following the principles described by Matts in his comment, with great result.
I am convinced that correctly tuned, this room would have sounded great. But not tuned, (incorrectly tuned) it must have sounded really strange.
If the owner contact Matts, he can probably correct the tuning and diffusion as it was intended. It is most unfortunate that this problem has kept the owner from using his expensive room (which wouldn't had costed 200 k$ if I'd built it).
Whatever your design strategy was it failed in many areas. There is a floor to ceiling issue that is + 7 - + 9 dB that exists from 70 - 100 Hz. This is a common issue with low ceiling heights and should have been addressed in the original design.
You mentioned the devices on the sidewalls were broadband absorption or broadband diffusion and could be changed to accommodate the listener's needs. It is difficult to achieve both of these "broadband" claims in one device. Narrowband absorption and diffusion are possible but not broadband in a flexible device. True broadband absorption or diffusion takes separate devices.
With all of this "tuning" that was done, the client is unhappy with the attack and decay rates within the room for low-frequency energy below 100 Hz. He is also unhappy with middle-range energy distribution which should not be an issue with proper diffusion sequences. We will have before and after response curves shortly along with a video from the customer explaining the changes we made.
ah, you were one of the designers connected to this dead room? funny that you respond when your product failed so bad that the owner can't even listen in it ... but yeah morons aplenty on this planet 😁
The side wall absorbing/diffusion modules you claim to be "narrow banded " are mounted inside 400mm wide and deep U shaped free standing columns. The V shaped soft dacron absorber is 220mm deep. With the narrow vertical HH side openings they absorbed between 150-20000Hz (Dacron with a acoustic transparent fabric)
For the broadband diffusion effect to be achieved the free standing column modules are flexible for different depths and diffusor sequences
Although you have been presented :
Before and after Varitune measurements from the Scania Lab that clearly show how the troublesome axial mode between floor-ceiling is broadband equalized with a minimum of energy loss
The delivery included 24 Varitunes mostly for this purpose
A link that spot on show how effective and broadband they are
:
th-cam.com/video/GjdACNPLzzg/w-d-xo.html
You still dont seem to understand that your video and answer is largely nonsense.
As stated repeatedly, SMT did not have the opportunity to tune the room as we normally do with dedicated rooms.
This is THE critical issue here. Had I been offered the opportunity to tune the room, any problems would have been addressed. I have great respect for the client. He was most impressed by our SMT design when he listened to a similar SMT Varitune/GH room in Stockholm, of coursed tuned by the SMT team. I’m confident that SMT could have created the high performance in his room that he enjoyed in the Stockholm room, had we been afforded the opportunity.
It is well known that room resonances under 100 Hz create masking effects. The client is spot on with this observation.
@@AcousticFields
@@mattsodemalm8725 Let me tell you what I do understand. I understand that no matter what treatment technology you are so keen to explain did not produce the desired sound strategy for the client. Obviously, he has issues with your performance and has retained our services. After using our technology for over a year now, he is enjoying our room.
I'm feeling a little sad for myself right now! LOL! Would very much like to see the end results!
A before and after video would have been helpful to understand what was so wrong with the previous treatment.
S, It was not possible since the room was full of gear. It became a warehouse instaed of a listening room.
At 2:45 the two large audio equipment racks appear quite near the listening spot. That ought to be causing quite some reflections, and throwing havoc with whatever that room treatment was trying to do. Quite an inadequate placement of those large solid blocks so near the sweet spot.
Instead of 200K, absorbtion in first reflections points (side walls, ceiling, and floor, e.g. carpet), that alone covers all major high freq. acoustic issues in any room. Just some proper absortion for that, plus some bookshelves and thick curtains in the room, and those electronics somewhere else, in any case further away from the sweet spot, maybe embedded into front wall between the speakers and behind a curtain, or even outside that room, should have made quite a better sounding space, imho.
R, Stay away from bookshelves and curtains. Stay with predictable and consistent technologies that address the real room issues.
Do you provide consultation for me to treat my room?
Fill out the information in this link:
www.acousticfields.com/free-room-analysis/
Did the owner spend two thousand on room treatment alone or on everything including the equipment? I didn't get it
S, 200 K means 200,000 USD
@@AcousticFields I made a mistake, sorry. I meant two hundred thousand ☺ a mess for me. So he spent all that money in equipment and treatment, wasn't it? Sorry if I make some mistakes, my written English is as bad as my ...
Salvador Rodenas probably includes equipment
@@andrewfitts3654 I think that 200.000$ is pocket money for a person that can allow himself a listening room like that. Probably his loudspeakers alone did cost that amount.
“S, 200 K means 200,000 USD” ... this was my customer service experience in a nutshell. Lol
Client has a house, within a house, within a house.