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 5287 times)

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