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: Monitor decoupling...need your opinions!  (Read 5302 times)

tetrahedron

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
Monitor decoupling...need your opinions!
« on: October 29, 2009, 01:25:55 am »

Hello again. At the risk of looking like an idiot, I want to post a couple of Monitor "decoupling" scenarios for your opinions. Frankly, because most of the aspects and details of pro "studio design" appear to be highly proprietary and secret, the only way I see to learn is via "blackbox" thinking...and then run it up the flagpole and see if I get a salute! Rolling Eyes  Laughing Anyway, here they are.

Here is the front of the control room.

http://httpics.com//is.php?i=909&img=1_Scheme_A_CR_F.jpg


Scenario 1.. Monitor mounted on commonly available Mass materials(ie. concrete filled CPU's) decoupled from isolated footing via adjustable isolation product similar to floating floor jackup systems mounted on welded steel frames separating mass from footing(ie..similar to Mason FSN LDS Jack ups)

Here is a section through the monitors.

http://httpics.com//is.php?i=923&img=NZ_11_Angled_Se.jpg



And here are the details of the first Scenario


http://httpics.com//is.php?i=910&img=18831_Scheme_A_CR_F.jpg

http://httpics.com//is.php?i=911&img=3_CR_Slab_and_F.jpg

http://httpics.com//is.php?i=912&img=4_Exposed_Monit.jpg

http://httpics.com//is.php?i=913&img=4_Scheme_1_Expa.jpg

http://httpics.com//is.php?i=915&img=6_Scheme_1_Moni.jpg

http://httpics.com//is.php?i=916&img=7_Scheme_1_Moni.jpg

http://httpics.com//is.php?i=914&img=5_Scheme_1_Moni.jpg


http://httpics.com//is.php?i=917&img=8_Monitors_with.jpg


I'll have to post another message for the second scenario pics.
fitZ





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

tetrahedron

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
Re: Monitor decoupling...need your opinions!
« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2009, 01:27:39 am »

Here is the second Scenario

Scenario 2.  Monitor mounted within an enclosure which surrounds the monitor with 3 or 4in thick rigid fiberglass, which in turn is mounted on an angled wood platform, fastened to Mass which is resting on calculated Sylomer pads, on top of isolated footing.





http://httpics.com//is.php?i=849&img=5322HEX_Control_Roo.jpg

http://httpics.com//is.php?i=918&img=10_Monitor_Deco.jpg

http://httpics.com//is.php?i=919&img=11_Monitor_Deco.jpg" border=0 alt=" http://httpics.com//is.php?i=919&img=11_Monitor_Deco.jpg">

http://httpics.com//is.php?i=921&img=13_Monitor_Deco.jpg

http://httpics.com//is.php?i=920&img=12_Monitor_Deco.jpg


Both scenarios utilize a soffit which surrounds the monitor with a 5mm gap,
http://httpics.com//is.php?i=922&img=14_5mm_Gap.jpg

which means the mass assembly must be quite accurate when building these assembly's...hence the adjustments in the first scenario.
My question is this. What or how do you calculate the system resonance to push it below a certain frequency and why that certain frequency? Or do you even try to accomplish this?

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

Constantin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 93
Re: Monitor decoupling...need your opinions!
« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2009, 06:11:40 am »

Hey Fitz

here is a Website that explains how and why decouple,  very easy with all the formulars you need:
http://www.earsc.com/HOME/engineering/TechnicalWhitePapers/V ibration/index.asp?SID=61

How many hours do you work on this sketch now? Shocked
It`s so detailed, and i saw the first pic a long time ago at johns forum and others at gearslutz.
Respect for your sketchup skills and your patience for the details. Smile

cheers
constantin

Thomas Jouanjean

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
Re: Monitor decoupling...need your opinions!
« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2009, 11:15:23 am »

Isn't that a copy of a Wes Lachot design?

I think there is a thread about it on GS, no?

Looks a lot like it!
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

Thomas Jouanjean

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
Re: Monitor decoupling...need your opinions!
« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2009, 02:59:59 pm »

Constantin wrote on Thu, 29 October 2009 05:11

Hey Fitz

here is a Website that explains how and why decouple,  very easy with all the formulars you need:
 http://www.earsc.com/HOME/engineering/TechnicalWhitePapers/V ibration/index.asp?SID=61

How many hours do you work on this sketch now? Shocked
It`s so detailed, and i saw the first pic a long time ago at johns forum and others at gearslutz.
Respect for your sketchup skills and your patience for the details. Smile

cheers
constantin


Nice link Mika! Quite clear and fast explanation of the whole process.

I'll put it in the DYI thread or in a special sticky.
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

Thomas Jouanjean

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
Re: Monitor decoupling...need your opinions!
« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2009, 03:33:16 pm »

tetrahedron wrote on Thu, 29 October 2009 00:27



My question is this. What or how do you calculate the system resonance to push it below a certain frequency and why that certain frequency? Or do you even try to accomplish this?

fitZ


I didn't see your question this morning...

Can't answer to you, and you know why.

But that should get you started. Calculate this:

1- Static load, Dynamic load, repartition of load over the decoupling system (may not be even).
- What is the needed range of decoupling.

2- Then go to the decoupling device and calculate:
- Needed range of admissible load
- Natural frequency (important)
- "Creeping" (so relative deflection vs load period),
- Dynamic modulus of elasticity (over a long period of time) (Dynamic modulus in N/mm
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

tetrahedron

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
Re: Monitor decoupling...need your opinions!
« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2009, 10:32:02 am »

Quote:

Hey Fitz

here is a Website that explains how and why decouple, very easy with all the formulars you need:

Thank you constantin. Actually, I've read this, but due to a HD crash,l lost the bookmark. I was just wondering if other elements have a bearing on this particular subject, which I see from Thomas' reply, there is.


Quote:

I didn't see your question this morning...

Can't answer to you, and you know why.
Hello Thomas...well, ok, that illustrates my opening point perfectly.

Quote:

But that should get you started. Calculate this:


Well, it appears I have some woodsheding to do. Laughing

Although, I don't understand what you mean by reviewing "infinite baffle". Would you care to explain a bit?

Thank you. And now, let me deal with this:

Quote:

Isn't that a copy of a Wes Lachot design?



 Copied? If you are refering to my use of a  common polygon shape, I must say. With all due respect Thomas,  since when does Mr. Lachot possess exclusive rights to plane geometry? Were that the case, Mr. Lachot may himself  be guilty of "copying", as Frank Lloyd Wrights design for  Stanfords "Hanna House" predates Mr. Lachots so called "design". by 70 or so years.
http://www.viamagazine.com/top_stories/articles/hanna_house0 1.asp
 Which if the owners blog for this particular studio is any indication, and by his own admission, Mr. Wright's design portfolio has a very profound influence on many aspects of the buildings design.  Heck, I believe he even gave a lecture on it at FLW's design school at Taliesin
I submit:
Mr Wrights "design"
http://httpics.com//is.php?i=925&img=hanna_floorplan.jpg
Mr. Lachots "design"
http://httpics.com//is.php?i=926&img=floorbug-300px..jpg

Perhaps Mr. Wright should be accused as well. The hexagon has even been used for city planning purposes for centuries.

http://httpics.com//is.php?i=927&img=Image1.jpg

If possession of exclusive rights to plane geometry was legal, even you would be subject to Euclidean intellectual
property right infringement.   Moreover,  should splayed walls and ceilings be construed as  proprietary design
elements, then surely you too have "copied" some previous intellectual "property".   ie..., given the fact that MOST
studio designers use an equilateral triangle  for the monitoring geometry, then this genre of design is rampant
with intellectual property theft, not to mention the entire worlds use of the rectangle for space delineation. sheesh!

The fact is, no. During my early interest in studio design,  I played around with various polygons for years. Even rectangles.Smile And due to ergonomic, acoustics, and other architectural requirements, certain elements become "de facto" within EVERY studio design. Even your latest design  has ALL the same architectural  elements that you describe as Mr. Lachot's control room "design". .. a window, equilateral triangle monitoring, a side window, a door, soffits ..which when juxtaposition-ed within the framework of a certain polygon, even yours may resemble MANY other peoples choice of shapes.  

Perhaps you ought to ask yourself the same thing. Gee whiz, whats next... wood studs as intellectual property?

Furthermore, when viewing Mr. Lachots "design",  I get the impression that the  use of "acoustical standards" to impose certain boundaries on space is a misnomer, as it appears the cart is before the horse in this case. I mean,  from what I've read, acoustic vs ergonomic COMPROMISE is the name of the game..that is if Mr. Newell is correct...ie...large consoles etc.  Since this design was not limited by existing building restrictions,  it also appears Euclidean geometry predisposes acoustics as a primary design parameter, with acoustics coming after the fact...ie..I'd bet $100, if "I" were to suggest the use of a hexagon for a set of control room boundaries, to a certain "acoustics" forum...I submit I'd be laughed out of the forum. But Mr Lachot?  Hardly.  In fact, if one certain acoustician opinions are to be believed , he even suggests that owners of studios with QRD's as a diffusion device may be the victim of so called "eye candy" design", at least when it comes to the use of QRD's vs Polys.  To questions regarding Mr Lachots use of QRD's, I was told this:  Remember...this is NOT me. Just the same...what am I to believe NOW?

Quote:


The world of studio design abounds with anti-scientific ideas. Clients want cool looking structures that express in physical form a wide range of wacky esoteric ideas. Corrugated diffusers are only one example. Designers and builders serve these emotional needs to the extent their clients have the money to fund its realization, and that's OK with me even if the Pope is a bit miffed. We might as well start bitching about fancy automobiles having little statutes of naked women on the hood because they don't make the car go faster. I say - let the boys have their fun.

But if you want to understand how well a curved plate works as a diffuser, versus how poorly all these silly corrugated surfaces work you can start reading some scientific papers on the subject [a couple of suggested papers are listed below to start you off]. You can also use standard speaker directivity measurement techniques [ground plane measurement method] to explore the matter yourself - it aint rocket surgery.You will soon find that the corrugated stuff, to the extent it works at all, only works at certain frequency bands.

Between these bands are lobes of utter ineffectiveness. Also you will find that at anything other than normal incidence, such diffusive performance as the device do obtain at normal incidence quickly collapses at other angles.

This is why when a professional is serious about needing diffusion [as opposed to just messing with the clients
head and providing some eye-candy they use a curved plate. If you look in a reverb chamber where maximizing
diffusion is critical to measurement accuracy, you will not find corrugated diffusers in the corners, you will instead find curved plates. There is a very good reason for that.


http://forum.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3533& ;p=49208&hilit=eye+candy#p49208

Well, sorry for my long reply...but I don't like being accused  of copying something that I didn't copy. Just because I used the same polygon shape.

Again Thomas, with all due respect.
And thanks again for your answer.
Logged
Alright, breaks over, back on your head..

Thomas Jouanjean

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
Re: Monitor decoupling...need your opinions!
« Reply #7 on: October 31, 2009, 12:24:24 pm »

tetrahedron wrote on Fri, 30 October 2009 09:32


But I don't like being accused  of copying something that I didn't copy. Just because I used the same polygon shape.


No need to feel accused of anything really, I thought you used that as an example to support your enquiry about speaker decoupling (since you introduced yourself as a 3D detail drawer). It does look a lot like this Manifold CR on GS. Even the owner of the soon-to-be studio got confused and thought you had extracted that from his 3D rendering.

Hence my question.

So this is a project you're working on? Looks interesting. Where is it going to be located?

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

Constantin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 93
Re: Monitor decoupling...need your opinions!
« Reply #8 on: October 31, 2009, 12:44:21 pm »

As far as i know it will be located in New Zealand.
There is a great thread at John`s Forum which shows the process step by step, starting from the empty warehouse, to the current stage of plans.

But Fitz can tell you more about it Razz

cheers
constantin

franman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 580
Re: Monitor decoupling...need your opinions!
« Reply #9 on: November 01, 2009, 09:31:40 am »

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery (or something like that??)... I guess we ALL copy ideas from time to time... let's face it, it's all been built before. It's just a matter of being a professional and knowing what you're doing, so that when you choose to 'be inspired' by some other design, you can properly implement it! Right??

FM

btw:  what about those Griffin monitors Tetra?? (LOL>>>> Cool
Logged
Francis Manzella - President, FM Design Ltd.
                 - Managing Director, Griffin Audio
fmdesign.com
griffinaudiousa.com

AndreasN

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 247
Re: Monitor decoupling...need your opinions!
« Reply #10 on: November 02, 2009, 12:59:07 pm »

from studiotips forum

You will soon find that the corrugated stuff, to the extent it works at all, only works at certain frequency bands.

Between these bands are lobes of utter ineffectiveness. Also you will find that at anything other than normal incidence, such diffusive performance as the device do obtain at normal incidence quickly collapses at other angles.


It is correct that diffusers only have optimal response at certain frequencies, with less optimal response between those frequencies. It does not mean that the diffusers are utterly ineffective between the mathematically correct frequencies. The diffusion coefficient of those devices are normally a flatish line (not a comb, as one should expect if they where "utterly ineffective" at non-ideal frequencies), with diffusion extending 1-2 octaves below the base frequency. That fact alone says a lot! There's also significant scattering in weird directions above the high frequency cutoff of those things.

The issue is probably most relevant with 1D diffusers based on very small prime numbers. (searching "flat plate frequency" will reveal part of the problem)

The incidence angle is not as critical as one may first assume, as the well dividers act as a phase grating. 2D diffusers are often built without wells. But if you have a look at them, you'll probably understand why they can work even with non-normal incidence. They are in all cases very complex surfaces!

Please feel free to ask if you have any questions! Are but an amateur when it comes to acoustics, but have read a lot on diffusion during the last year and may perhaps help you.
Logged

Thomas Jouanjean

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
Re: Monitor decoupling...need your opinions!
« Reply #11 on: November 03, 2009, 03:09:08 am »

I agree that saying diffusors are utterly inefficient between those freq is a bit of a stretch to say the least. Skylines are just wonderful little things, QRDs are great too if deep enough and well calculated.

Polys work fine but I see them as great "scatering devices" -  a "diffusor" has to diffuse in time too.

One great thing with polys is that you can easely combine them with a tuned resonator / trap. Which is quite convenient in some applications!

I'm very fine with the fact that a designer adds some "bling factor" to a design, or a visual trick, as long as acoustics come first. If it's just as efficient and looks better please don't refrain...
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

tetrahedron

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
Re: Monitor decoupling...need your opinions!
« Reply #12 on: November 05, 2009, 03:33:53 am »

Hello gentleman. Sorry I haven't been back sooner. Too many "honey do's" to do.  Very Happy

Quote:

How many hours do you work on this sketch now?
umm,  about 12 or 13. This stuff is fairly easy for me, mostly because I have a HUGE library of components. Its my toy box. Laughing
Plus I know a lot of commands, lots of Ruby scripts and specific Sketchup tricks. The downfall is file size. I have to continually hide, or save and reinsert components till I can visualize what I want a jpg to look like.


Quote:

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery (or something like that??)... I guess we ALL copy ideas from time to time... let's face it, it's all been built before.
Well, I guess I have to say it again. Mr. Manzella, I did NOT imitate nor copy Mr. Lachots design, regardless of what you think. I know you are probably rolling your eyes, but it is the truth. Like I said, I played around with polygons of all types over the years. Hex shapes were no exception. I mean, reeeeeeeeeally..how UNIQUE do you think a hex is? But let me explain how this came down.

 I was trying to help a guy in New Zealand, who asked for some help with improving his Sketchup file. Now, I know it as well as you, I am an amateur at this stuff, but that doesn't mean I know nothing. However, most of my "help" has been in the form of small home studios. This project was vastly bigger, and NO ONE ELSE was helping him. So I give it a shot. The problem was he wanted to use HIS CR floor plan layout, which was fine with me.
So, I started playin around with it, using simple interior planes.
 But you know as well as I do..that ain't no fun! I wanted to draw what "I" thought was cool. I mean, after all, this is all in VIRTUAL space...and for FREE!! Just the same, I did something I new full well was going to cause some people to call me an idiot. That was posting a design BEFORE it was finished. Since there was an unusual roof, and very little dimension info, I extrapolated what I could, and then used some high ceiling planes
to illustrate the space that was available height wise. Sure nuff.  

 I immediately recieved a complete critique of my "unfinished" jpg from a couple of members. I tried to explain to no avail. geeezus. Well, over the next few days, I simply stopped working on HIS plan, and decided to do what I wanted. Afterall, its MY model and I'll do what I damn well please. Right? Right.
 Thats when I went into some old files looking for components, and DANG! There was this file where I was playing around with hexagons. Now, heres the deal. I AM a detailer. I've been doing this stuff for 25 years. So I have LOTS of files. Autocad included. This one plan looked interesting. Unfortunately, over the years, I had listened to so many people who scoffed at the idea of introverted splayed walls at the rear of a CR, I simply
abandoned these sketches. What I DIDN'T abandon, was a curiosity about design, plain and simple. I mean, why WOULDN"T it work. Frankly, who cares? Its ONLY a virtual reality control room, right? Right.  So I started playing with it. Unfortunately, it didn't FIT in his building with all the other rooms he wanted. So after 4 or 5 hours of trial and error, I finally had what I thought was pretty damn cool. At least to me. The next problem was a window and soffits. He was pretty open to soffits.

Well, I'd already posted a plan with the G1's in it, but heck, I wanted something new. And frankly, I'll admit it. I wanted this to look PRO. No more "homestudio" stuff. So I proceeded to look for some monitors. I don't know if you are aware of the Sketchup WAREHOUSE. You can find virtually ANYTHING there. Already drawn, and you simply download it right into your model.
EXCEPT "BIG" PRO STUDIO monitors. I decided I already had the G1, which I still have to UPLOAD to the warehouse, why not do a few more to upload with it. Yea. Ok, thats what I did. I started with the Dynaudio. Which I used in the model. No problem. What was REALLY the problem was the window. Lots of research before I drew it.
 And that's when I came across Mr. Lachot's design. Once I saw the plan...I was absolutely astounded. It was so close I couldn't believe it myself. But here's the deal. It AIN'T. It just looks that way. And that's the problem. People like yourselves, because its a HEXAGON, just assumed I copied Mr. Latchot. Well, when push comes to shove, if TRUE dimensions mean anything, I'd bet $1000 my model is nowhere near his real interior dimensions. Afterall, where the heck would I get them? sheeesh.  

Anyway, thats what happened..so help me GOD!!

Ok gentleman, one last thing. That quote I posted in regards to QRD's...........I DIDN"T SAY IT!!! But just the same, this "difference of PROFESSIONAL opinion, just drives me freaking crazy! If this is SCIENCE..either it works or it doesn't. And QRD's ain't the only thing that seem to illicit completely contrary opinons either. They're all over the place in studio design. This is why I get the way I do. I mean, HOW DO YOU GUYS RECONCILE THIS FACT?

Ok, I've said my piece. Thanks for the input. Its late.
fitZ




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

tetrahedron

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
Re: Monitor decoupling...need your opinions!
« Reply #13 on: November 05, 2009, 03:46:27 am »

Oh, one more thing. About those poly's...


http://httpics.com//is.php?i=932&img=S1_A.jpg

http://httpics.com//is.php?i=934&img=S1_C.jpg

Very Happy








ITS ONLY VIRTUAL REALITY, so no need to critique. I just have fun.
Logged
Alright, breaks over, back on your head..

tetrahedron

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
Re: Monitor decoupling...need your opinions!
« Reply #14 on: November 05, 2009, 03:58:15 am »

Oh, I forgot. Mr. Manzella, about the G1's. I really do have a client. However, nothing has changed at the moment in regards to what I told you before.  The moment I hear ANYTHING, I'll contact you.
Logged
Alright, breaks over, back on your head..

franman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 580
Re: Monitor decoupling...need your opinions!
« Reply #15 on: November 07, 2009, 12:11:53 am »

Relax please. I'm really just trying to keep things "light"... REEEEEEEALY!! I mean it!

Very Happy

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

AndreasN

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 247
Re: Monitor decoupling...need your opinions!
« Reply #16 on: November 07, 2009, 07:24:26 am »

tetrahedron wrote on Thu, 05 November 2009 09:33

If this is SCIENCE..either it works or it doesn't.


Sorta true, but the perpendicular is equally true: not being a compromise with ifs and buts is usually wrong.

Knowing the strong and weak points of different solutions and the consequences thereof for the application at hand is the art of applied science(engineering). Or something like that.. Smile


Diffusers are not widely understood. Have a search on the interwebs and you'll see what I mean. You'll hardly find any much useful information. Consult The Book for the real info!
Logged

franman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 580
Re: Monitor decoupling...need your opinions!
« Reply #17 on: November 07, 2009, 11:41:15 am »

tetrahedron wrote on Thu, 05 November 2009 03:33



Ok gentleman, one last thing. That quote I posted in regards to QRD's...........I DIDN"T SAY IT!!! But just the same, this "difference of PROFESSIONAL opinion, just drives me freaking crazy! If this is SCIENCE..either it works or it doesn't. And QRD's ain't the only thing that seem to illicit completely contrary opinons either. They're all over the place in studio design. This is why I get the way I do. I mean, HOW DO YOU GUYS RECONCILE THIS FACT?





Fitz, I'm sorry this isn't obvious to you, but what we do as professionals is a mix of science, art, design, blend, shrink, expand and otherwise mix our clients dreams into a design that hopefully turns into reality. This is absolutely NOT pure science. If it was, then you wouldn't be here asking the questions. It would all be text book. This is a 'design' because it's a unique solution to a clients needs and wishes. Our designs are ALL riddled with compromise... ALL of them. I often describe my job in two ways: 1. Fitting 20lbs or crap into a 10lb bag and 2. Guiding clients through a series of calculated compromises to end up with the best project for their specific situation.

Yes, there's a lot of science involved. Yes, some of it (like structural decoupling and mass law) is pretty cut and dry. What you have to remember is this is all about MUSIC. This is where it gets fun, interesting, ambiguous and SUBJECTIVE... What I like best is not what you like best (or Thomas, or Wes...). That's why customers hire one of us or the other: they like something we do better than somebody elses stuff.... combined with the fact that we provide them with a comfort level, and experience to help guide them through the oncoming series of compromises..

Does this all make sense?? Music is the variable here. What I hear and feel sounds great is my 'opinion'. How I achieve the environment that I feel sounds great is my 'approach' and it's not JUST SCIENCE. To feel it's that simple is very naive. Hey, the iPhone is just a cell phone... what's the big deal??

OK, off the soapbox.. sorry for the rant... just have chime in every once in a while when I feel a major point is being missed. Fitz, this isn't about your skills, your designs where your inspirations come from... etc.. This (forum) is supposed to be a sharing of ideas, experience, question and answer forum. You cannot be offended if those of us who moderate or participate don't want to give detailed replies to project specific questions that exceed our comfort level on 'free consultation'. We (all) provide A LOT of free advice, free answers and free professional information. Please respect it when someone tells you something is proprietary. I always do.

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

tetrahedron

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
Re: Monitor decoupling...need your opinions!
« Reply #18 on: November 08, 2009, 04:01:55 pm »

Quote:


Relax please. I'm really just trying to keep things "light"... REEEEEEEALY!! I mean it!

Very Happy

Embarassed  I'm sorry if I haven't been "light". I'll try to keep it that way in the future.

Quote:


Sorta true, but the perpendicular is equally true: not being a compromise with ifs and buts is usually wrong.


Gotcha. I'm beginning to understand. Unfortunately, I began asking questions on QRD's 8 years ago, and the first response I received from a well known Acoustician and another Studio designer,was completely at odds with the views expressed in this thread in regards to QRD's. In absolute fact, I was told FLAT OUT by the Studio designer.."they don't work and he'd seen MILES of these units torn out".  Indeed, if acoustical devices are based on science, why would one group of this discipline so heartedly disagree with another? I'm sorry if that is not "light", but this question has hounded me for almost a decade. AND, I get chewed out every time I bring it up...like...what the heck gives here?

Quote:


Fitz, I'm sorry this isn't obvious to you, but what we do as professionals is a mix of science, art, design, blend, shrink, expand and otherwise mix our clients dreams into a design that hopefully turns into reality.
Oh, I'm aware alright. As an interested amateur, all I've been trying to ascertain is  where the compromises are and why. Hence the type questions I ask. I mean, I haven't asked what WOOD works best, or color , have I? Razz

Quote:

This is absolutely NOT pure science.
BINGO!! You'd think it was if you ask questions on an acoustics forum. Rolling Eyes   You'd get a chart showing the absorption difference between Mahogany and Gaboon, when all your using it for is trim Very Happy

Quote:


Yes, there's a lot of science involved. Yes, some of it (like structural decoupling and mass law) is pretty cut and dry. What you have to remember is this is all about MUSIC. This is where it gets fun, interesting, ambiguous and SUBJECTIVE... What I like best is not what you like best (or Thomas, or Wes...). That's why customers hire one of us or the other: they like something we do better than somebody elses stuff.... combined with the fact that we provide them with a comfort level, and experience to help guide them through the oncoming series of compromises.


Mr. Manzella, I assume this includes Acoustics if the only thing that certifies you've done your job is the owners approval, no?

Quote:

Does this all make sense?? Music is the variable here. What I hear and feel sounds great is my 'opinion'. How I achieve the environment that I feel sounds great is my 'approach' and it's not JUST SCIENCE.


Thank you for your frankness. Since the day I began my interest, I've been under the impression that ALL studio designers sought a COMMON acoustical "standard" that could be measured, and tested to insure this standard was met. NOW, I'm REALLY beginning to understand your professional job description.

Quote:

OK, off the soapbox.. sorry for the rant
Rant? You've mistaken me for someone who thinks like you Very Happy Didn sound like a rant to me at all. On the contrary, "I"m the guilty party here.  Hahahaha!

Quote:

. This (forum) is supposed to be a sharing of ideas, experience, question and answer forum. You cannot be offended if those of us who moderate or participate don't want to give detailed replies to project specific questions that exceed our comfort level on 'free consultation'
Embarassed Gotcha. Whats your rate for sharing proprietary ideas? Very Happy(just kidding) I totally understand.

Quote:

Please respect it when someone tells you something is proprietary. I always do.
Ok Mr. Manzella, but if I'm not mistaken, I DID say at the beginning of this thread that I understood some things were "secret", did I not? I only asked for your "opinion" on "my" proprietary design...which "I" SHARED with this forum. However, now that I understand that "compromise" can mean anything, and the only thing that I have to do is meet clients needs within his budget and existing limitations, and can back any design goal with tests to prove I met this client approved goal, then I guess that's it. I've finally come to the end of my quest. Thank you and everyone else for all that you've shared with me. I am indebted to you.

fitZ



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

AndreasN

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 247
Re: Monitor decoupling...need your opinions!
« Reply #19 on: November 09, 2009, 08:03:49 am »

tetrahedron wrote on Sun, 08 November 2009 22:01

Gotcha. I'm beginning to understand. Unfortunately, I began asking questions on QRD's 8 years ago, and the first response I received from a well known Acoustician and another Studio designer,was completely at odds with the views expressed in this thread in regards to QRD's. In absolute fact, I was told FLAT OUT by the Studio designer.."they don't work and he'd seen MILES of these units torn out".  Indeed, if acoustical devices are based on science, why would one group of this discipline so heartedly disagree with another? I'm sorry if that is not "light", but this question has hounded me for almost a decade. AND, I get chewed out every time I bring it up...like...what the heck gives here?


There's a lot of different ways to do diffusers. Some better than others, depending on application. There's also been considerable progress during the last 30 years in the understanding of how the things actually work. As an example, the source of the incidental absorption these objects have, was not understood until a series of tests in 94, which wasn't brought to a conclusion until another test in 2000. Poor workmanship can easily make for excessive absorption from these devices. Coupled with a rudimentary understanding of how these works, it's not unrealistic to expect that there have been built a number of diffusers that didn't work too well. Often having excessive absorption along with a severely limited frequency range of proper operation. The typical low prime number, low depth and wide well designs, can have as little as two octaves of proper frequency range!

The basic response can be seen in this simulation:
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/attachments/bass-traps-acoustic-panels-foam-etc/135104d1252314705-2-ch-listening-room-aiming-best-possible-falstad_qrd.jpg

The flat wall gives a plain specular reflection, with the reflected energy having the complimentary angle out compared to the angle in. The diffuser shows the seven lobes of energy that comes from a prime 7 diffuser. The animated simulation can be seen in this video:

Larger arrays or larger prime numbers gives a more complex response pattern from the diffuser. The frequency dependence can clearly be seen in this video: - it's a bit long winded but the tendency is clear: at low frequencies, below the effective range of the diffuser, it acts pretty much as a flat wall. As frequencies gets higher, scattering gets more complex, with some of the high frequencies having perfect theoretical response and others having not so perfect response, yet still vastly more complex than the scattering off a flat or curved wall.

The simulation is highly simplified, but at least it gives a coarse indication of how these things work!


Best regards,

Andreas Nordenstam
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Up