R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Down

Author Topic: Griffin G1 Vertical monitoring centerline Axis question  (Read 5908 times)

franman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 580
Re: Griffin G1 Vertical monitoring centerline Axis question
« Reply #15 on: September 07, 2009, 07:51:49 pm »

Fitz,

The specifics that you request information about (several posts ago) relating to front wall design, distances, location of focus point, etc.. these (as Thomas has mentioned) are all design specific and vary from room to room and (more) from designer to designer. This front wall design IS one of the few things we do that I feel is quite proprietary. These also vary depending on monitor choice, size of room, console and other design 'goals' for each project.

Having said all that, most of the basic principles have been discussed in this forum before including: very rigid front wall, decoupling for monitors (my preference) and equilateral triangle placement as a 'rule'. I don't necessarily agree with Thomas on the 5% max tilt for flush installations.. but this is just one example of how things vary from designer to designer....

The 38% rule you refer to is really not applicable in flush mounted installations and you will find most if not all flush mounted control room installations have the listening position in the front third of the room. Avoid the mid point!! you are going to be in the middle of the room (side to side) as this is good symmetrical design practice, but avoid the front to rear mid point as well as the height mid point as you will surely have a good amount of LF anomalies at these room center lines.

The acoustic center on the Griffin G1 is the middle of the tweeter. The monitors are intended to be installed with the mid range drivers and the tweeter in a vertical line (see any of the photos on our website) as you show in your latest set of pictures. Yes, we break this rule for Center speakers in a 5.1 installation as there is no better solution other than possibly a very large Center speaker with two 18" woofers (which of course we would be happy to build for you!!).

Finally, with regards to designers and partnerships with speaker manufacturers, this is something that has just naturally evolved with my company. FM Design will work with clients who prefer other monitors and we often design studios with other main monitors. However, I have found that once I get a customer over to one of our studios with large Griffins installed they typically sell themselves. Griffin is a company that was begun as a response to what we believed was a lack of super high quality studio main monitors, and the belief that we could build something 'better'. Of course, this is very subjective, but my partner and I believe we have achieved this goal. We also have the ability to provide custom solutions for multi-channel systems, subwoofer configurations, etc. because we are the manufacturer.

I invite you to contact me via email (my original suggestion) to discuss matters of business and specific answers to your questions regarding installation of our monitors for your client. Designing a control room for large flush mounted in wall monitors is not a simple task, assuming you want to get it right and have it sound great when complete. If this is something you have not successfully done at least a few times before, then I might suggest you consider recruiting the services of an experiences studio design firm to assist. When a customer is going to spend a pile of money on equipment, and construction this is a huge responsibility. That is of course, a entire other subject.

In the continuing spirit of this forum, we will always try to answer general questions and specific ones when possible. Thomas and I have agreed that there is a line, that we really cannot cross when the questions become too project specific. I'm sure everybody understands that this is how we make a living. ... Anyway, nice pictures you've posted!!

FM
Logged
Francis Manzella - President, FM Design Ltd.
                 - Managing Director, Griffin Audio
fmdesign.com
griffinaudiousa.com

franman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 580
Re: Griffin G1 Vertical monitoring centerline Axis question
« Reply #16 on: September 07, 2009, 08:01:53 pm »

[quote title=tetrahedron wrote on Sun, 06 September 2009 01:43]
Quote:



And finally, at least for this post, the issue of the width of the wall between soffits and how other designers assign the Target point distance from the front wall, still keep an equilateral triangle, and get enough width for a WINDOW?

 At least when the 38% paradigm  is used, in order to have a wall wide enough to insert a window, the room length must be HUGE! which expands the triangle, which makes the room wider, which THEN allows for a Window. However, I see control rooms all the time with windows and soffits, but the engineering position is so far forward, an equilateral triangle would be impossible. Whats your take on this stuff?

Anyway, thanks for any insight. I'll be back with a few more questions later.





Try putting the tweeter/midrange on the center side. (not on the outside).. This will help keep the room size, and focus position under control... I typically end up with this configuration (woofers on the outside) althought it's not required...

FM
Logged
Francis Manzella - President, FM Design Ltd.
                 - Managing Director, Griffin Audio
fmdesign.com
griffinaudiousa.com

tetrahedron

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
Re: Griffin G1 Vertical monitoring centerline Axis question
« Reply #17 on: September 10, 2009, 01:01:46 pm »

Hello again gentleman. Thank you again for addressing my questions. Sharing your insight is really appreciated.

As usual though, I'm left with the distinct feeling that my search for the roots of solid Recording Studio design foundations are in vain. If reviewing many subject related forums in the past and present is any indication, it appears that personal preferences, opinions, design philosophys, and other subjective values determine the larger percentage of overall project design than an actual coherent design strategy based on criteria established by a set of Industry set standards that define the performance any control room design MUST meet. Afterall, one only has to look at different completed studios which suggest this may be true.

For example. Let me ask this last question.

 Is there a TEST, given by some accredited authority, or accepted by the industry, that once administered by said authority, CERTIFIES that any given control room design meets a threshold set of criteria established by said authority? And if there is indeed a test, do you, as a designer, use this testing criteria as a source of parameters which you seek to satisfy?

I understand there ARE standards, however it appears there is nothing(that I know of) that certifies any given design meets them, or even has to.

And from my understanding(Master Handbook of Acoustics), at one time there was a company called Syn-Aud-Con that did this very thing. Although, also from my understanding, this was a short lived endeavor. Why I don't know. Except maybe for statements made by some well known studio design community members regarding QRD's...like "they don't work and I've seen MILES of them torn out"...and other point blank opinions regarding MANY aspects of control room design, which I mentioned in my first post. In fact, in reply to one of my earlier Studio design knowledge seeking questions regarding "diffusion"..I was actually told by a well known Acoustician, that he could hardly believe that the afore mentioned book was actually a book on acoustics. Go figure.


However, since I am not a member of the Pro Studio design community, and have never had the time or resources to pursue this as a career, I haven't kept abreast of the current state of what QUALIFIES a control room design, other than maybe the reputation of the designers, the owners ears, or a music industry award for sales of a recording. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm just trying to understand exactly, what  the overriding factors are that justify ACOUSTICAL decisions in control room design...that ALL studio designers agree on.

Anyway, thank you again.

Logged
Alright, breaks over, back on your head..

Thomas Jouanjean

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
Re: Griffin G1 Vertical monitoring centerline Axis question
« Reply #18 on: September 10, 2009, 04:20:11 pm »

There are standards, well "benchmarks" is a more adequate word, when it comes to studio design.

When I design, I give a legal guarantee of results. Which can be quantified and measured of course. In the preliminary stages of the design, I will discuss with the client these different benchmarks with regards to the building constraints, and also put these benchmarks in perspective with the available budget. We then agree on numbers.

Like for example level of soundproofing, response at sweet spot (like +/- XY dB) Reverb Time, overall maximum variation in dB in the room, room saturation threshold and so on.

What varies is HOW you achieve such numbers. A good studio is a good COMPROMISE. This paradigm is very important. Each Designer has it's own approach to design and therefore different solutions or slightly different solutions to a problem. It can indeed be a question of taste, and actually often is.

Two rooms can have the same response on a RTA and similar RT and yet 'feel' completely different. A good designer can actually meet the decided benchmarks and will also make his best effort to understand what the client is looking for "taste" wise and offer him that.

Studio Design is as much about hard maths and physics as it is an art... It isn't just a series of models and equations. Numbers, although a big part of it, are not the only variable in Design. There is a definite human variable.
Logged
Thomas Jouanjean
Northward Acoustics - Engineering and Designs
http://www.northwardacoustics.com
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Northward-Acoustics/1062876633 71

Pro Audio Partners:
ATC Loudspeakers
FOCAL Professional Speakers

franman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 580
Re: Griffin G1 Vertical monitoring centerline Axis question
« Reply #19 on: September 10, 2009, 09:02:27 pm »

Thomas Jouanjean wrote on Thu, 10 September 2009 16:20

There are standards, well "benchmarks" is a more adequate word, when it comes to studio design.

When I design, I give a legal guarantee of results. Which can be quantified and measured of course. In the preliminary stages of the design, I will discuss with the client these different benchmarks with regards to the building constraints, and also put these benchmarks in perspective with the available budget. We then agree on numbers.

Like for example level of soundproofing, response at sweet spot (like +/- XY dB) Reverb Time, overall maximum variation in dB in the room, room saturation threshold and so on.

What varies is HOW you achieve such numbers. A good studio is a good COMPROMISE. This paradigm is very important. Each Designer has it's own approach to design and therefore different solutions or slightly different solutions to a problem. It can indeed be a question of taste, and actually often is.

Two rooms can have the same response on a RTA and similar RT and yet 'feel' completely different. A good designer can actually meet the decided benchmarks and will also make his best effort to understand what the client is looking for "taste" wise and offer him that.

Studio Design is as much about hard maths and physics as it is an art... It isn't just a series of models and equations. Numbers, although a big part of it, are not the only variable in Design. There is a definite human variable.


As usual, Thomas has put this very well. Fitz, if trying to find a set of RULES for control room design, you won't find them. There are factors that can be measured and quantified, but as Thomas and many others have pointed out, our ears can define much that is difficult to quantify with measurements. I would like to think that we are working at a level that is beyond some nebulous "Industry Standard" and trying to achieve a higher result than just, flat response and even decay time above 100Hz.... having said that, there are plenty of very successful and popular rooms that I have worked in, visited or possibly even designed, that do NOT measure 'flat' in the typical vision of what this means. They do however, sound really musical and produce consistent results that translate very well. This is the key IMHO for control rooms and playback environments: that they translate consistently to other pro and non-pro environments (like your car, the club, your daughters boom box, etc...). You can calculate, measure and design for a target sound isolation specification without too much difficulty. Trying to quantify what makes some the critical listening rooms we've done sound so much better than other rooms that the same mastering engineers have worked in for years is really difficult.... but, when one of the worlds top known mastering engineer calls me after his first week working in a brand new room and tells me he's nailed his first three projects with zero call backs, and that this never happens... this is the best compliment we can possibly get.

I am absolutely NOT trying to make this into any black art, or voodoo. I DO NOT subscribe to this approach taken by some designers. For me, it's years of experience working in and on studios, listening to hundreds of rooms and speaker/amp combinations and taking all this experience and applying it to my customers' needs on a PER PROJECT BASIS. EVERY PROJECT IS DIFFERENT. Otherwise, we could design three control rooms (small, medium and large for example) and just use them over and over on projects. We DO NOT do this either. Every customer and every project gets a fresh evaluation and a solution based on the unique requirements. Do we do the same things in many aspects of the design the same in various projects??? Or course. If it works (over and over again), don't break it!

As Thomas said, the integration of a great acoustic design solution with the aesthetic and ergonomic needs of the clients particular project are what make the art part of what we do. It's not just math and numbers, although understanding the science and having experience applying it are absolute requirements...

So... you can't just read the Master Handbook (A Great Book, BTW and I highly recommend) and make some drawings after calculating Modal response, SBIR, Reflection control, etc.. (although this is all the stuff we do when we start a new design)... you need to be able to see and hear into what you're designing based on experience... THIS is why we get paid to do what we do. This is what we cannot impart to others on this or other forums.. It's the experience and the intangible creative solutions applied to each project that make our projects (hopefully) a success. When potential customers ask me if we can work on a new room with a design architect and just "do the acoustics", typically I will pass. Many people just don't get it that everything from room size, geometry, finish selection, placement of speakers and other equipment, air conditioning solutions, electrical installation... EVERYTHING is what makes a great design! and it is an ongoing study in COMPROMISE... every time. I sometimes describe my job as an never stopping exercise in artistic and scientific compromise...

OK.. getting off my soap box now.. Whew. Sorry if I rant now and then... thanks for listening.
Logged
Francis Manzella - President, FM Design Ltd.
                 - Managing Director, Griffin Audio
fmdesign.com
griffinaudiousa.com

Greg Reierson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 425
Re: Griffin G1 Vertical monitoring centerline Axis question
« Reply #20 on: September 12, 2009, 09:27:40 am »

It's interesting to hear acousticians having similar discussion to the ones mastering engineers (and lawyers) have been having for years. You can DIY, but you'll get what you pay for.


GR
Logged

tetrahedron

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
Re: Griffin G1 Vertical monitoring centerline Axis question
« Reply #21 on: September 12, 2009, 12:37:52 pm »

Quote:

OK.. getting off my soap box now.. Whew. Sorry if I rant now and then... thanks for listening.


Mr Manzella, It is I who thanks you and Mr. Jouanjean for sharing your valuable insights with me.  If I understand you correctly though, the only thing that "qualifies" your final design are the owners trust and approval(and check:), but you will perform field tests if the owner desires them.  Interesting.   I can only assume the design specifications must include the acoustical/TL targets as agreed upon.  I think these technical specs are really what I don't understand. But I do understand this is where your experience and judgement prevail, and no one can illustrate this on a forum.

Mr. Manzella, I also assume, that you had to start somewhere, with NO experience, and you must have made mistakes along the way that you learned from.  After all, no one starts out with a full book of experience. But I'm left wondering what initially gave you credibility as a studio designer? Did you work for another design firm, or did your career evolve from some kind of education?

Since I'm not aware of any specialized STUDIO DESIGN education curriculum(outside of Acoustical/Architectural education) I would guess that it took a long time by experience alone had you no specialized education. Possession of a degree in Acoustics doesn't mean you are a competent designer. Nor does an Architectural/Interior design degree make you an acoustician or Studio savy.   Hence I understand your remark about "passing" on accepting "acoustical consulting" vs complete artistic/technical control of your projects.   From my own experience, I've seen "credentialed" professionals in the design/construction world who didn't have a clue to certain aspects of Studio Design and others. Not that I posses professional "credentials" myself.  However, I've been interested in Studio design for a long time so DO understand most aspects to some extent.  My professional weakness is in the Acoustical science arena, if not electronic theory. Mostly, I'm just a Pro Detailer with an interest in Studios, which evolved from my past as a musician. Thats not to say I'm not familiar with many other aspects.

Anyway, again, thank you for sharing.
fitZ


Logged
Alright, breaks over, back on your head..

tetrahedron

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
Re: Griffin G1 Vertical monitoring centerline Axis question
« Reply #22 on: September 12, 2009, 01:11:04 pm »

Oh, btw, the "client" I referred to, and I, recently surveyed a potential site/building for his proposed Studio project. Unfortunately, I live in a small city on the West Coast of the USA where he wanted to build said project, which is a Port, and as such, most of the downtown has evolved over time on a highway adjacent to the port. Most of this area is a LANDFILL, with the major hiway, which is split for the length of the city so each traffic direction occupies a street seperated by a block wide swath of buildings the length of the city. Also, because this cities main industry is Lumber mills, these streets are used by a continuous stream of Logging trucks.

Not to mention, the building is BETWEEN these two streets.  GAK!!!Shocked

My client was unaware of these potential TL disasters, (not to mention he wanted to put the studio on a SECOND FLOOR!!). He also invited a local Building Inspection official to give us his insight and opinions on this particular building and its potential Code implications. Holy moly. Because this landfill area is a FLOOD PLAIN Shocked , any investment into building improvements that are 50% of the market value of the building, places the jurisdiction of the CODES under Federal Law, as FEMA(Federal Emergency Management Authority) has jurisdiction over Flood Plains anywhere in the USA. Frankly, I'm glad this happened as my client had already made an offer on the building before contacting me. Talk about...WHEW!!! Very Happy

 What we were told is...basically, the whole first floor would have to be raised 24", as this building is over a hundred years old. YIKES!!  Needless to say(this would cost more than building from the ground up as the building is a block deep and 60 wide with 3 floors)....my client now has decided to seek another building, and or property to build from the ground up(still a shakey proposition downtown). So, for the moment this project is in limbo. Crying or Very Sad  Rolling Eyes . However, should the time come to focus our attention on equipment, I've let my client know your invitation to discuss your product with him and or I.  Till then, thank you again.
fitZ
Logged
Alright, breaks over, back on your head..
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Up