2d qrd diffuser make

[Guest Babar]

elusive, get down your big horse.

 

That made me lol. Its "high horse" babar

[cruising for burgers]

that must be pretty cool - i dont know anyone who is able to distinguish reflections within the ISD gap

 

and how on earth can you "balance" reflections that cause comb-filtering?

i'm not getting that clinical, usually a good room makes a guitar sound better, and it is because of its own echoes, reverberation times, etc... right??

 

elusive, get down your big horse.

 

That made me lol. Its "high horse" babar

he sure looks high

 

say what??? we don't have a stoner emoticon???

[elusive4]

that must be pretty cool - i dont know anyone who is able to distinguish reflections within the ISD gap

 

and how on earth can you "balance" reflections that cause comb-filtering?

i'm not getting that clinical, usually a good room makes a guitar sound better, and it is because of its own echoes, reverberation times, etc... right??

 

 

 

yes - but how do you get those good echos/reverb times/etc that makes a room good?

[elusive4]

elusive, get down your big horse. I wasn't discussing mathematical proofs, i was just saying "PICS OR GTFO". i'm actually interested in this kind of stuffs, i'd just like to listen to a recording (just to get a remote idea of how it actually sounds).

 

not my video but a good baseline

http://www.realtraps.com/video_diffusors.htm

[chenGOD]

Thats fucking cool man. I take back every insult to you and your lossless ways, you're clearly hardcore.

 

the room is the single biggest determining factor in how your music sounds (or how your recorded music sounds)

the information is out there, but it seems like this is the one topic where you literally have to fucking force people to understand it, because no one believes it right away. ive never encountered a topic where i literally had to CONVINCE people of high school physics....you would think once you read the material that it would be a 'eurika' moment on how obviously beneficial it is. but it's not the case with anything related to audio...

 

no matter how nice of speakers of gear you put in your room, you still have fundamental room issues that dictate how things sound. and the best thing is -- people seem to think room treatments are the 'final touches' for rich people's listening rooms or high end studios ... when the real deal is, room treatments should be done FIRST. the best thing is, they're surprisingly cheaper than you could ever imagine --- everything can be done do-it-yourself....and there is tons of information and people out there to assist. on the forums i frequent, the people who sell commercial room treatments are the ones who assist the most with people building their own - it's wonderful.

 

ive spent very little money on room treatments and have a world of difference in sound quality, stereo imaging, etc...i know every analord hiss in and out and once i absorbed all my early reflections - im hearing even more details (like the slightest-ever pans, reverb hits, etc) ... it's great. if i were to upgrade my speakers it would cost ridiculous sums of money, and it still wouldnt address fundamental room issues. garbage in garbage out. the room has final say on everything you hear.

 

and no, EQ does shit. eq is like putting a band-aid on a stab wound. it's a nice 'final touch' but it's certainly not what you start with. if you'd like to no more why eq is garbage, speak up and ill go on.

 

And yet so many great records have been made in what would be considered shitty rooms. :)

 

also, why on earth would you ask physics students about music?

 

I'm not saying this stuff isn't cool, cause it is, but hardly the be-all end-all of music production/re-production/listening.

[cruising for burgers]

that must be pretty cool - i dont know anyone who is able to distinguish reflections within the ISD gap

 

and how on earth can you "balance" reflections that cause comb-filtering?

i'm not getting that clinical, usually a good room makes a guitar sound better, and it is because of its own echoes, reverberation times, etc... right??

 

 

 

yes - but how do you get those good echos/reverb times/etc that makes a room good?

with math

[elusive4]

And yet so many great records have been made in what would be considered shitty rooms. :)

 

also, why on earth would you ask physics students about music?

 

I'm not saying this stuff isn't cool, cause it is, but hardly the be-all end-all of music production/re-production/listening.

 

ah, the cicular logic of anyone who doesn't want to put the time or effort into understanding --- the usual "well if it's so important, than why do old albums produced with no treatment sound so great!"

 

no one said it's the be all end all - you're putting words in my mouth and being difficult. i dont care about music production - just listening. im not interested in buying more expensive speakers when they don't address fundamental room issues. it's garbage in garbage out. the room dictates output, period. all these people brag about how flat the response is on their fancy mic, or how flat the response is on their new shiny speakers. but as soon as you take them out of the anechoic chamber and into your room -all that is meaningless. your room now skews the response.

 

if you think it's not important, then why don't you take your mic and download this:

http://www.hometheatershack.com/roomeq/

and do some impulse, etc, and time domain measurements so you can get an idea of what's going on in your room.

 

i have huge peaks at my room modes (150/300hz, especially) - which are very overwhelming, especially in tracks like pissed up in se1, where i get this huge bloom of sound on the low end. also, depending where i sit or where the speakers are located in relation to the boundaries, i can be sitting in a null for certain frequencies and not be able to hear them due to cancellation/out of phase reflections. no offense, but not hearing certain frequencies within the audible spectrum is not my idea of ideal.

 

times change. 30 years ago everyone thought huge multi band eq was an absolute requirement - because they used that to address room issues. the problem is, eq can help but if you move your head a few inches in either direction, you could have an entirely different frequency response. much of the information is relatively new. im not into production/mastering, but id like you to show me any recently developed mastering room/recording room that doesn't take into account room treatments. it may not be required, but it makes life a hell of a lot easier. bare, parallel walls are fucking hell. i dont understand why there's such a backlash on people who put the time and effort in to make things better - especially when it's do-it-yourself for super cheap ... versus buying fancy high end $ speakers and equipment.

 

that must be pretty cool - i dont know anyone who is able to distinguish reflections within the ISD gap

 

and how on earth can you "balance" reflections that cause comb-filtering?

i'm not getting that clinical, usually a good room makes a guitar sound better, and it is because of its own echoes, reverberation times, etc... right??

 

 

 

yes - but how do you get those good echos/reverb times/etc that makes a room good?

with math

 

what type of math - and how is the math applied? and what is the math applied to? give me details here if you're going to get into this with me.

 

if a guitar sounds better in a "good room" - then tell me what a good room is and how a good room is achieved?

[elusive4]

and dont confuse this with some sort of requirement for recording.

recording doesn't have to be perfect unless that's the design requirement (orchestras recorded in large halls, etc) -- i like tricked out rooms with wack ass reverb for wicked recordings.

 

that's an entirely different discussion than my design requirements and goals. when i get into these discussions, people always want to try and bridge those gaps when it's apples and oranges and irrelevant to compare. recording is entirely based upon the maker's decisions...im just interested in getting my room to sound better and better clarity/stereo imaging/etc. quite simple.

[cruising for burgers]

well, will not get deeper cause i feel very impotent trying to discuss in English language

 

 

a "good room" is not always a good room, it has a purpose, or not... it might be perfect for some instruments and weak for others, but i guess everyone knows that...

[elusive4]

well, will not get deeper cause i feel very impotent trying to discuss in English language

 

 

a "good room" is not always a good room, it has a purpose, or not... it might be perfect for some instruments and weak for others, but i guess everyone knows that...

 

 

so are you restating my previous post in a change of words? that's exactly the message i've conveyed above. i explicitly brought it up because you took the ball (like everyone else does) and tries to muddy the two different elements together. i discussing my listening room and working to achieve a flat response, better stereo imaging, and lower decay times on the LF.

 

you're trying to take the design requirements and reasonings for above, and attempting to fit them as if im insinuating some sort of "only one right way to do it" regarding recording.

 

can you at least make the effort to read and understand what I said instead of presenting ridiculous commentary which is meant to distract others from the fact that you are making comments which bear no relation to the discussion?

 

i asked you questions regarding how YOU would use math to design a "good room" --- please back up your statements. what math would you use to design a "good room" ... what elements (specifically) in your mind constitutes a "good room"? to me, a good room is generally low decay times, and minimize room mode effects (peaks + nulls) for a flat freq response. why on earth do you think i would find it acceptable to have a listening setup and not hear 50/100/150/+octave hz because i sit in the null of that room mode based on the longitude dimensions of my room? go do a sine sweep in your listening position now from 20-500hz. or measure it on your mic if you want to be accurate about it. you're going to have big nulls where you may not even hear that particular frequency, and other freqs that are standing waves where that freq could be +6dB higher than the rest ... is that acceptable? would you not want to put a little effort into correcting? if not, that's your business. but dont come here and put words in my mouth or take away the fact that im putting effort into something i enjoy to make things better - at relatively zero to little cost. at least im applying principles and math and working on this hobby of mine to further my knowledge on the subject. im not forcing shit down anyone's throat - you're putting words in my mouth as if im making a statement that there's only one right way to do things. get fucking real and backup your statements or resign.

[chenGOD]

elusive - i do understand, we had to do a fair bit of physics in recording classes (your room sounds like typical low-end standing waves). Lots of top-end rooms are designed very well, and yes it can be quite inexpensive. You misunderstand my point - of course room treatment has been around for a donkey's age, certainly longer than 30 years. That's why surfaces are covered with different materials, that's why bass traps have been employed for a long time. It's just that it's not a requirement for a great record to be made.

 

As for listening, i generally do all my listening in the same spot, and yeah when i move not hearing certain frequencies is hardly ideal, but I guess I'm just not that hardcore in my audiophile-ism...

 

So anyways - cool project - very neat, I'm glad you enjoy it and I'm not trying to denigrate you in any way, shape or form.

[elusive4]

It's just that it's not a requirement for a great record to be made.

 

please stop with attempting to draw this conversation back towards "recording" and rights/and/wrongs. it was never meant in that regards in the first place - i used the guitar as an example of destructive comb-filtering from early reflections within the ISD gap - not on how all guitars Must be recorded. maybe my commentary could have been better because it seems more than one person took it as if that was what i meant ... it certainly wasn't.

 

 

As for listening, i generally do all my listening in the same spot, and yeah when i move not hearing certain frequencies is hardly ideal, but I guess I'm just not that hardcore in my audiophile-ism...

 

So anyways - cool project - very neat, I'm glad you enjoy it and I'm not trying to denigrate you in any way, shape or form.

 

that's fine. it's your business how you spend your time and what things you work towards improving. me personally . i get lots of enjoyment from listening. the math/physics comes quite naturally, hence why i take the ball and run with it. i cant afford multi thousand dollar speaker setups that others may have. i also live in a small studio loft and even my speakers arent setup in ideal positions (symmetry) because my furniture dictates my living arrangement. but i can make my room sound incredible with lower end speakers - and get better performance than others with high end stuff just tossed into a dumb room. that's my personal satisfaction. i can only work with what i have, and the goal is to make that sound as good as possible given my constraints.

 

i made the original post because i figured some people would find it cool and it's audio related.. . i didnt know anything about room treatments until a while back on another forum someone did exactly the same - and i inquired...then took the ball and ran with it. it sparked interest and the advantages of putting some work into fixing fundamental issues (vs buying better speakers hoping to get better sound) was very rewarding. that - and being a hobby it gives me great pleasure and excitement in hearing the results.

 

the same principles are applied for home theater setups as well...where you have a much larger 'sweet spot' to design for --- multiple chairs/rows of seats/etc...which offers greater challenges.

[cruising for burgers]

well, seems like you found someone with a horse as high as yours

 

i've never had any doubt about the veracity of your statements, maybe i said something that you misunderstood and one more time i blame the english...

[elusive4]

well, seems like you found someone with a horse as high as yours

 

i've never had any doubt about the veracity of your statements, maybe i said something that you misunderstood and one more time i blame the english...

 

hand shake.

 

keep the insults rolling. i just browsed your posts --- like your commentary or contributions to the community is much better...nice escape attempt at getting into a scuttle with me then ejecting as i press for you on clarifications of your earlier statements and call you out --- you run in predictable gallops.

[Guest cult fiction]

This is awesome... some folks have been drinking too much haterade.

 

It's not like he bought one of these.

 

If you don't believe the listening environment has an enormous effect on the sound, you've obviously never been outside when there is a blanket of snow on the ground, or listened to a boom box in a stairwell, etc.

[cruising for burgers]

well, seems like you found someone with a horse as high as yours

 

i've never had any doubt about the veracity of your statements, maybe i said something that you misunderstood and one more time i blame the english...

 

hand shake.

 

keep the insults rolling. i just browsed your posts --- like your commentary or contributions to the community is much better...nice escape attempt at getting into a scuttle with me then ejecting as i press for you on clarifications of your earlier statements and call you out --- you run in predictable gallops.

insults???

 

really, i don't get it.

 

not handshaking

 

you just tried to make me feel bad, in fact you just made me feel bad, like many times around here, and i didn't, never, so, go post on the "are you evil" thread and check in a YES

 

just re-readed the whole thread and i don't get where did this train get out of the rails

[sup]

when i saw all the in the op i was like :sup: then i read some more poests about what it was and im like then i skipiped to page 3 and i think your all

 

[Guest Super lurker ultra V12]

:u-zig:

[Bubba69]

Room response is BY FAR the best improvement you can make once you have invested in a decent monitoring system. Spending thousands of dollars on expensive amps and EQs and speakers for a theoretically flat response means jack shit unless you have some kind of room treatment. Even with near field monitoring it's still a really good idea.

[Guest Babar]

I listened to that video and i'm convinced that these devices do change sonority. But is your board enough ? Or does its effects get spoiled by other objects in the room ? And how heavy is it ?

Also my garage is located under my living room (it has a parquet floor) so i guess it acts like a soundbox. It's cool, because when you lay down in front of the speakers and listen to a track that has really deep basses like Ageispolis, you basically get a massage for free. So basically, i enjoy it. But what say the maths ? Am I right enjoying it ?

[elusive4]

I listened to that video and i'm convinced that these devices do change sonority. But is your board enough ? Or does its effects get spoiled by other objects in the room ? And how heavy is it ?

Also my garage is located under my living room (it has a parquet floor) so i guess it acts like a soundbox. It's cool, because when you lay down in front of the speakers and listen to a track that has really deep basses like Ageispolis, you basically get a massage for free. So basically, i enjoy it. But what say the maths ? Am I right enjoying it ?

 

that's wonderful that you're convinced they do. apparently the math, polar graphs and lab measurements which are all repeatable wasnt enough.

 

i said earlier it's going on my back wall (directly behind the listening setup now --- where today i have very thick porous absorption). the back wall for any listening setup is probably the highest priority to treat, along with the rest of the early reflection points. why wouldnt it be enough? it'll spread energy across 2 planes instead of directly reflecting *all of the acoustic energy back. it's 36" x 36" which should be plenty of square area considering my sweet spot (listening spot) is only 1 chair. if it were a row of chairs or a home theater, would be beneficial to have a larger array or groups of that array and also some inverses of that design

 

just take a moment and make the effort to think about it...your speakers point towards your back wall. the sound traverses past your head (you hear the original signal) and continue until they hit the back wall where, because it's a flat boundary, all of the acoustic energy will then be reflected directly back towards the listener and the speakers (original source). as this happens, you have the obvious room mode which will dictate standing waves which will then dictate a series of peaks and nulls where that frequency will either be louder than the source, or out of phase with the source which will cause cancellations and you will not hear that freq (or itll be like -20dB). you also have the rest of the frequencies converging and causing comb-filtering. you do know and understand what comb-filtering is?

 

 

Or does its effects get spoiled by other objects in the room ?

 

the point is to break up enough of the energy and diffuse it in multiple directions so you're not being blasted with the full reflection (since it's bouncing off a flat wall behind you. do you ever play billiards (pool?)? think of it like that. it wont be spoiled by other objects in the room unless there were other flat boundaries close on the side walls where some of the diffused sound would bounce off a flat wall and then reconverge in the same plane as the original source. but that's not an issue here. and you can always add more diffusers on the side wall to treat other planes/surfaces. most objects (a bookshelf, for example) will scatter...but it's not true diffusion like what is calculated for the design i built.

 

 

So basically, i enjoy it. But what say the maths ? Am I right enjoying it ?

 

you should try putting a little more effort into being a smartass. you really are lazy at it.

[wahrk]

This is awesome elusive. Great job. I'm super jelly. Perhaps I'll tackle one of these in the future.

 

That being said, you're being pretty douche-y. Tone it down. Spread love, not bitter sarcasm.

 

 

also, why on earth would you ask physics students about music?

least idm statement of the day

[elusive4]

 

That being said, you're being pretty douche-y. Tone it down. Spread love, not bitter sarcasm.

 

get your context right before making judgment on the vector of my responses. my responsal-tone delta is based on the feedback loop of his sarcasm and attempts to put words in my mouth

[Guest Scrambled Ears]

step 1) build diffuser

step 2) build internet fortress to defend diffuser

[Guest bigs]

yeah yeah, right right.

But does it work ? Could you make a recording of you blasting some music in your room with and without this, "wall" ?

 

if i find a mic, sure ... it's not installed yet (still have to build stand for it to keep it raised off the ground)

this will be for my back wall (where i currently have about 6" OC703 rigid fiberglass there now -- full absorption so no sound bounces off the rear wall and interferes (comb filter) with the original source).

 

does it work? lol you're not very good at math as a child, have you been? do you even understand the fundamental issues that diffusers address? let alone how they do it? you shouldn't need "proof" but i suppose the "proof" is any proper studio designed in the last 20 years...

congrats! you seem like a prick.

 

edit: read the rest of the thread, confirming my hypothesis. there's a fine line between being helpful/educational and being a pretentious ass. you stomped all over that motherfucker. all over it.