Ethan Winer
Acoustics Expert
Thanks for clarifying Thomas. The speakers I see most (always?) in the wall are horns of one type or another.
--Ethan
Thanks for clarifying Thomas. The speakers I see most (always?) in the wall are horns of one type or another.
--Ethan
barefoot
barefootsound.com
Good question. The truth is car audio can't truly mimic the freestanding case. Like I wrote before, the critical feature that makes a freestanding speaker translate better than a soffited speaker is combining a flat on-axis response with a stepped ambient response. But car audio designers pretty much ignore the finer questions of on-axis versus ambient response. They have speakers and listeners all over the place, so things like imaging, direct field and ambient field are almost meaningless. What they try to do is just control the overall spectral balance, with the reference these days typically being a freestanding stereo system. Of course, the vast majority aftermarket systems are not "engineered" at all. They're basically boomboxes on wheels. But the few high-end car audio designers I've talked to use freestanding speakers in a good room as their benchmark. Think 'mastering suite'.Car speakers are ALL soffet mounts. Show me a free standing CAR speaker. Could you please explain how they "mimic the -6dB high shelf power response of freestanding speakers"? And why? Soffet mount speakers sound BETTER toi me than free standing. So why mimic "free standing" speakers in a LISTENING environment rather than a monitoring environment that needs to MIMIC the "typical" listening environment?
Thomas
Last edited:
RICK FITZPATRICK
New member
Hmmmm, car speakers are SOFFITED, yet designed to "mimic" freestanding speakers, yet they must still fill the car with people to absorb the lows .....not to mention that a car is the ultimate "small room".. no wonder mastering is done in a car
and then again, on headphones, there is no room response when listening, not to mention playback on stupid computer audio monitors.....which more and more people listen to, not to mention the Ipod thing...with earbuds...
which must be why I see so many vintage audio system/humongous speakers in the thrift stores lately. It would appear that the younger generation has been dumbeddown to CD, Ipod, small shelf systems and home theater systems with small surround audio systems...(which sound like crap to me compared to my altec Model 19's....geeezus I must be getting old.
This all reminds me of something else, which I've ranted about for 5 years now. And it really is beginning to irritate me. To make a long story short, when I first got into studio design, I bought Alton Everests "Master Handbook of Acoustics", wherein the "magic" of QRD's were pushed by the author as if they were the holy grail of acoustics. l swallowed that one for 5 years...UNTILL, John Sayer, who was the guru of this very bbs for a long time, told ME personally on a thread here....THEY DON'T WORK...AND, he had seen MILES of these torn out of existing studios. HIS solution was SLOT absorbers.....for a long time...UNTILL, later on, on a new site by the name of Studiotips(that took over where the defunct Yahoo Acoustics group left off which is a story in itself that I won't go into but it has to do wih this very rant), Eric Desart convinced me these are NOT the holy grail either.
Won't go into that one either
I spent another year trying to pin the bottle of QRD snakeoil down....to the point i posted this very rant on the extinct Yahoo Acoustics group, whereby I recieved an answer from Eric Desart where he said ....let me quote(I saved that conversation just to remind myself)Over time, a 5 year battle ensued between Mr. Desart and the owner of Real Traps, which I only include here as more "evidence" of the "who do you trust" line of thinking I became used to. Imagine the Battle of the Bulge over "professional interpretation" of absorption coefficients and the REAL truth of the "edge effect"....which btw is STILL being pinned down at Studiotips to this day
http://forum.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?t=3255
Even in Everests book, I took the "edge effect" at face value only to learn it doesn't have any, unless you want to face the wrath of enlightenment"
rolleyes:
And then it was the next holy grail of studio design...the REAR WALL OPTIONS pin down, which took me almost a year to put togeather. STILL haven't got a significant CONSENSUS on that one yet:rolleyes....I mean REALLY!!! Lets see what we have to choose from on that one.....over a period of 10 years I came across the following....
Option 1. Specular wall
Option 2. Membrane/broadband absorbers
Option 3. Thick absorption
Option 4. Slot/Slatwall over thick absorption
Option 5. Hangers...(I love the discussion over time on this one)
Option 6. and then I came across the infamous SPACE COUPLERS!!
Option 7. and then back to the BBC....and the infamous POLYS!!! yahoooo!
Option 8. then along comes the lab test proven SUPERCHUNKS!!
Option 9. and then back to diffusion with the mighty SKYLINES!
Option 10 new and exciting hybrids like a QRD/POLY!!
Option 11 any hybrid combo of the above...not to mention
THE FAMOUS HEMHOLTZ!! except don't take the formula in most books at
FACE value....ahem....it was wrong.
Thats why I asked on the thread at John Sayers acoustics forum...."after all these years of mainstream studio treatment, why NOBODY had
HEARD IT??????
I won't say what the replys were. I sounded to me like....it DIDN'T mean diddly squat in the long run.http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1351&highlight=hemholtz+formula
Which after trying to resolve all this crap from an UNPROFESSIONAL homestudio point of view, I decided to take on the SOFFIT MOUNT vs Freestanding issue for my studio. BEHOLD...the NEW SPEAKER FORUM at John Sayers site, with the PHYSICS guru upholding and issuing quantified propaganda for the new holy grail of monitoring...SOFFIT MOUNTS!! AND.....even showing HOW to build the framing for these....UNTILL....when ACTUALLY trying to frame these myself according to the drawings posted by barefoot, I became aware of a discrepancy(at least to me) which is when "I" personally asked barefoot on his thread about "decoupling" the framing...where he replied
GENERAL????
Excuse me? Thats when I decided "I" had to solve the delima myself. https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=255023&highlight=Soffit
geeezus thomas....whats the point of "general concepts" if they DON"T solve the problem....which btw you NEVER did!
Which brings us back to this thread. Now, I hate to sound impertenent, and I'm not trying to impy ANYTHING....but Thomas, don't you own a company that SELLS freestanding $7k monitors?
No wonder I've become disenchanted with this whole damn homestudio thingy
The more you try to make sense of it, the worse it becomes. I think I'll buy an Ipod and be done with it.Well, excuse my verbose rant...but do you blame me? Afterall, if we can't trust PRO's recommendations that OTHER PRO's either negate, or at least disagree with, which I've seen over and over in this field...well then, who DO we trust?
fitZ
btw, after 100 years of recording, and millions of recordings monitored in "less than perfect" control rooms, and all the new fangled "designs of control rooms/monitoring systems....I STILL listen to music on "less than perfect" systems in all kinds of environements...and it NEVER occurs to me that the magic of the music is somehow not "perfect" in whatever environment I'm listening in. I've NEVER heard someone say......"god that recording sucks...it doesn't translate to my room...musta been monitored on soffits!
RICK FITZPATRICK
New member
BTW, I'm sure glad Acousticians don't recommend heart surgery.
solo2racr
SUCK, SQUEEZE, BANG, BLOW
RICK FITZPATRICK
New member
Thank you, but I was refering to OEM car audio systems, not aftermarket. Although I wonder how those sound in a car. I have a pair of aftermarket car speakers(those stupid wedge thingys) that I listen to in my shop, along with a pair of Omnibus outdoor speakers. For the shop, they sound great, and I still never ever wonder what the music was monitored on in the studio it was recorded in.
Do you? I have a $100 bill for anyone who can tell which kind of system(soffit or freestanding) a recording was monitored on in a BLIND A/B listening test.
I bet the engineers who design high end audio car systems use $12k cables too.
barefoot
barefootsound.com
So, I discern from your scattered writing and your non implication (wink, wink) that you question my credibility and integrity?Which after trying to resolve all this crap from an UNPROFESSIONAL homestudio point of view, I decided to take on the SOFFIT MOUNT vs Freestanding issue for my studio. BEHOLD...the NEW SPEAKER FORUM at John Sayers site, with the PHYSICS guru upholding and issuing quantified propaganda for the new holy grail of monitoring...SOFFIT MOUNTS!! AND.....even showing HOW to build the framing for these....UNTILL....when ACTUALLY trying to frame these myself according to the drawings posted by barefoot, I became aware of a discrepancy(at least to me) which is when "I" personally asked barefoot on his thread about "decoupling" the framing...where he replied
GENERAL????
https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=255023&highlight=Soffit
geeezus thomas....whats the point of "general concepts" if they DON"T solve the problem....which btw you NEVER did!
Which brings us back to this thread. Now, I hate to sound impertenent, and I'm not trying to impy ANYTHING....but Thomas, don't you own a company that SELLS freestanding $7k monitors?
First of all, the soffit design I posted on the Sayers site was clearly identified as a basic design concept from the start. I gave no specific blueprints or dimensions other than the range for the bezel/speaker gap. I left it up to the intelligence of the reader to develop the specifics. As far as I know, you're the only who didn't understand this point.
Since I posted that thread, I've changed my mind about soffiting. I mentioned this numerous times on various forums, including the Sayers forum, and gave specific reasons why. In fact, I reiterated them right here in this thread. We learn things in our lives and are sometimes forced to change our views. That's what science and engineering are all about. I'm sorry if you feel I led you astray, but I was working with the best knowledge I had at the time.
I stand by everything I've posted as my best effort to convey the honest truth as I believed it to be at the time. I'm a human being and I do indeed make mistakes. But the fact that I own a speaker company has nothing with the information I try to share. Considering how long you've been around on these forums, I'm actually astonished that you would question my intentions. But, hey, continue to have at it if you like. I think there are enough people who respect my efforts that you might wind up making yourself look a bit foolish.
Thomas
RICK FITZPATRICK
New member
Thomas, what makes you think someone is making a fool out of themself for trying to find the truth. If I believed that, I'd STILL believe the IRS
Which after spending 4 years researching to the bottom of the Congressional record, I can honestly say, they're fucking liars, extortionists, thieves and kidnappers, with a corrupt Federal court to back them up. So, when does a professional become a professional. After he kills someone by his opinion someone should have heart surgery, and then decides he needs to change his perspective? As to your company, I only asked for the truth. You offered your version. Maybe I see it another way, right or wrong. I'm not trying to condem you or anyone else, but it sure seems wierd for a PHYSICIST to change his mind after using science in the first place. fitZ
barefoot
barefootsound.com
Ok, here's a very quick lesson on science:
Everything is not known. Science is a process of discovery.
It's not as if one can go to a textbook and flip to the chapter on studio monitor translation. People are still figuring this stuff out.
Last edited:
pandamonk
Well-known member
I'm sorry rick, but science is about finding the truth, so it's certainly accepted that a scientist(physicist) can and should change their mind.Thomas, what makes you think someone is making a fool out of themself for trying to find the truth. If I believed that, I'd STILL believe the IRS
fitZ
They don't all get together and decide on the truth and stick rigidly to it, like religion. They go with what they have at the time and change their mind with the evidence.
RICK FITZPATRICK
New member
Funny is right. But I'm not laughing at the moment, because I was one of the ones that thought your ideas and designs were at the leading edge when you were an advocate of soffiting speakers. Unfortunately, I'm not about to tear up my studio to accomodate a change in "shool of thought" perspective. I guess I'll just have to live with "dark translation", should I even get that far.
I can tell you this though. I've seen more than one paradyme shift in this field of interest, and if current music recording "translation" is any indicator of its success, I'd submit the current crop of recordings plain suck. Whether or not it is a measure of talent, engineering, studio/control room design/ technology or producer idiocy, I don't know. But what I do know is, that I listen/record a program every Sat night called American Rhythm(Gourmet oldies) on PBS, where the host plays recordings from the late 1800's to the 60's, and I must say, somewhere along the line after the 60's, recordings began to change. My favorite is the sound of the Boogie Woogie/black vocal artists on 40's recordings. Talk about acoustic elegance of Acoustic Bass, piano, guitars, horns, vocals...geezus, there is no comparison now. Maybe it was the ribbon mics, simplicity of mono, a small footprint analog mixer, no multitracking, fantastic talent, mic placement/choice, genious engineering/mastering or what. But there is definitely a sonic difference, one of which I truely enjoy. Its not that current recording is bad, it just seems...lets put it this way...not real. As soon as the program is over, its back to the current sonic palette of garbage. Talk about dark. But then again, I'm an old fart with eclectic tastes
And that brings to mind talent now. When I listen to the current crop of artists(not that you can listen to everybody because there is so many recordings released), which every night on PBS there is a program called the World Cafe which showcases new talent,(if thats what you can call it), and after about 30 minutes it ALL begins to sound the same. Pablum. Like it was homogenized in a computer. But one thing sticks out like a sore thumb. Talent. I listen all the time for some new artist with one tenth of the expression of the likes of Ray Charles, Dela Reese, Louie Jordon, or any of 100s of artists from the 40's and 50's. And you know as well as I do. There ain't any. Zilch. Zero. Nothing. Its all McDonalds. (sigh)
The reason I bring this up, is one fact sticks out. It doesn't matter what kind of studio, what kind of equipment, what kind of engineer, what kind of mic, what kind of hype, what kind of mastering, what kind of technology, or what kind of monitor setup..what matters is Talent, cause if you ain't got that in the studio...ya don't have diddly squat.
Well, I've said my piece for the day. Thomas, excuse my little rants, and yes, I understand where you are coming from, and no, I don't have a beef against science. What I do have, is a beef against ADVOCACY of the latest breakthrough in sonic school of thought, only to be tossed out by next years crop of "reenlightened" studiocrat designers who's design philosophy inherently depends on a product that they just so happen to manufacture. , but no matter what it is, it will NOT improve the talent. Case in point... Space Couplers.BTW, heres the latest design phylosophy
I think I'll go back and reinvent my studio to this......Attachments
Ethan Winer
Acoustics Expert
Thomas, don't you own a company that SELLS freestanding $7k monitors?
That's not really fair Rick. As you know, sometimes I'm accused of dissing room EQ or even lame tweaks like vibration pads only because I sell bass traps. As I always explain, I sell bass traps because I believe in the concept, not the other way around. Likewise, it makes sense that Thomas sells free-standing speakers because he truly believes this is the best design, or the best implementation of his design.
if we can't trust PRO's recommendations that OTHER PRO's either negate, or at least disagree with, which I've seen over and over in this field...well then, who DO we trust?
Heh, you trust me of course.
Seriously Rick, acoustics is as much an art as a science. There are people who I may disagree with on some points, but I still acknowledge that they get good results as confirmed by their satisfied customers. As you know, it's impossible to make any small room perfect. So then it's down to who's compromises do you consider the least detrimental.
--Ethan
Ethan Winer
Acoustics Expert
No shit. At the risk of taking this off topic I can't resist making a closely related point.
When a politician changes his opinion about something he's accused of waffling by the opposition. Personally, I'll always vote for the person who is savvy enough to recognize new information and change course accordingly. Versus small-minded people who refuse to be swayed no matter how compelling the argument or new information.
Taking this even further off-course - hey, it's a slow day - I also have little regard for politicians who are afraid to try anything new. When a politician admits to smoking pot I see that as a Good Thing. At least they were curious enough to try it. Versus the small-minded who are not curious about anything.
Okay, you can now resume discussing soffit mounted speakers.
--Ethan
RICK FITZPATRICK
New member
I guess. Frankly, at this point I don't know what to believe anymore. This is probably why I still drive a 1986 pickup.Of course, especially if you need to sell products. Or if you have the resources to upgrade with every whim of your chosen guru. However, I wonder how YOU feel when you are led to believe something that you make unredeemable decisions on. that turns out to be less than concrete, hmmmm? Case in point....BearStearns.
I also wonder what the other users of your past advocacy have to say now. My personal view of the Pro studio world is that changes in overall phylosophy are of very little consequence, as the owners usually have deep pockets and are used to endulging in every new and exciting product or idea. For most HR enthusiasts however, their choices are usually based on trust that current advocacy is based on tried and true SCIENCE, which have over time proven to be true. Unfortunately, for me and others who chose to trust in such advocacy, a change in the chosen gurus philosophy can undermine ones decision hiarchy, which they may NOT recover from, or change without extreme measures, IF they want to maintain current dogma. Case in point...I'm certainly glad I didn't have the resources or space at the time, to trust Everests advocacy of QRD's. Sometimes I wonder if he got a kckback from RPG, as over time these have proven to be a considerable waste of resources and time, if not a complete joke. Science my ass. I only say that because I "believe" what time has shown.Anyway, in light of the true consequences of my chosen monitoring scheme, its no different than my choice of analog, as its taken YEARS to accumate what I have now, and my studio is ONLY for my enjoyment, so there is NO consequence.
Sooooooo, I wish you luck in your freestanding speaker endeavor and advocacy. Lets hope the next round of enlightenment doesn't undermine you.FAIR?? Excuse ME????? Fair??? What the hell does fair have to do with it? I've seen this kind of shit over and over, and theres NOTHING fair about it. Let the chips fall where they may. Free enterprize is free enterprize, and advocacy of ones product is what its about. However, when people trust in the proponent of their subject of interest is based on current "science", and that science turns out to be bunk, what the hell is fair about that? Especially when were talking about major indulgences in time and money
Case in point... $7k for a couple of wooden boxs with a few components from other vendors and some proprietary design is a shitload of money to invest based on a "gurus" opinion based advocacy driven sales hype. And I DO mean hype....afterall, the next round of this crap is just around the corner. Anyone out there have a science based opinion on the supremacy of SOFFITS? I'm all ears. Just don't tell me you have to use your soffit based product to succeed. Rant finished. Have a great day.
barefoot
barefootsound.com
Good. Nobody is saying you can't make perfectly good or even great recordings with your current setup. My "flip-flop" on the benefits of soffiting is about what I think is closer to an optimal setup. But talented people have been known to make great records on all sorts of systems, good, bad and mediocre.
Btw, as far as soffit mount setups go, I still think my decoupled baffle concept is one of the coolest ones going. Plus you reinforced your speaker cabinets like I suggested. So as far as I'm concerned you are at the cutting edge of the soffit mount universe. Most pro studios don't have a front wall as cool as yours. So get to work on some music. You have one hell of a nice monitoring setup.
barefoot
barefootsound.com
Oh shit, I missed this part. Now that is funny.Case in point... $7k for a couple of wooden boxs with a few components from other vendors and some proprietary design is a shitload of money to invest based on a "gurus" opinion based advocacy driven sales hype.