Audio Myths workshop

[kara]

if you are realy interested in digital audio truths and myths, you have to look this :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

You'll have to make some time for it, it's one hour, but certainly worth the time.

So in stead of watching TV this evening, watch this 

k
 

[Oren]

...if you are realy interested in digital audio truths and myths, you have to look this :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

I've seen it, and it is so good that I'll watch it again.
It's common sense, and that's refreshing, because there is so little of it in the world of recorded sound and digital audio...

[folderol]

Absolutely fascinating! Great find

[elwoodblues1969]

This video reminds of a time when I was strolling through my local music store & discovered that Monster Cable was actually "designing" a series of audio cables specifically geared for each genre of music.
This company claims that each of it's specially engineered cables have sonic differences,in that they each enhance jazz,rock,pop, etc.,.That's right,you read this correctly,Monster Cable is trying to convince the public that their cables compliment different genres of music.....this is just as absurd as that jar of rocks & pebbles that is supposed to create sonic differences in a room.

I went on to watch another of Ethan Winer's videos about home theater room acoustics.As far as audio gear goes,I don't necessarily agree with his use of a sub woofer,as I feel it is unnecessary & far too costly for those with a moderate income.
Even when one has an unlimited income,the amount of work involved in achieving the right balance of bass,along with the rest of the system is tedious.
In terms of cost,well...there is no such thing as creating sonic accuracy in a sub woofer system on a budget,because none of these systems are well engineered acoustically,because not enough money was invested for upgrades in materials,along with research & development.

Besides which,when was the last time you went to a concert or a movie theater & saw/heard a sub woofer system?Well,I never have & I don't see the need for one.
Being blasted with sub frequency rumbling that is far below what is necessary,instead of bass frequencies that are actually audible to my ears,never made sense to me.
I once had a very interesting discussion with an older woman(who by the way,has as much experience in the audio field as Ethan Winer) & she feels the same way about the use of subs.
She was an audio engineer for a major news network for many,many years & she had more horse-sense than most people I've known.What I find it particularly interesting also,is our shared view on 5.1 systems.
I was explaining to her that I never understood the need for center channel speakers...particularly if one has a quadraphonic set up with ideally placed speakers.
Reason being,is that the pan from left to right gives the perception of audio occurring in the center of the room.Besides which,how in the hell does one hear a movie in 5.1 surround sound,if it was not originally recorded that way?
Also,how many DVD's out there are 5.1 anyway?
I'm certainly no audio expert,but how does one take a Bond movie that is 40 years old,& convert it into a true 5.1 format?

I'm not saying that subs can't be useful,as there are fully self contained 3-way studio monitors out there with a built in sub woofer in them,but they are astronomically expensive.
There is no disputing at all,that 3-way systems are the ideal way of segregating all 3 of the main frequency ranges,but the advancing technology in 2-way monitoring systems has reached a point where 3-way systems aren't necessary for most applications.

As a matter of fact,the company Event,claims that their 2-way Opal monitors actually out perform 3-way systems and whether or not this statement is entirely accurate,the Event Opal monitor's overall & accuracy and range is absolutely unheard of,at the $3,000 price point...which makes these monitors the biggest overall value on the market.

I certainly don't doubt the quality of Ethan Winer's home theater set up-but for me personally,I wouldn't want to bear the expense,nor would I want to go through the hassle of trying to tame those overbearing sub bass frequencies.


-Thom

[Oren]

As a matter of fact,the company Event,claims that their 2-way Opal monitors actually out perform 3-way systems

A friend was at a trade show for audio retailers a few years ago, and one high end speaker manufacturer had a set of speakers presented in a listening room, cloth grilles left on. Participants were invited to guess how many drivers and cross-overs were in each enclosure.

Most listeners felt the speakers sounded like three-way set-ups, some guessed four or more, even a few suggested two.

The grilles were removed to reveal one single full-range driver in each enclosure - no crossover.

[elwoodblues1969]

It's been my experience that the initial demo of something,whether it be at a music store or trade show....or even after a couple of days of listening in the home,a speaker system is not going to reveal it's true colors until they've been thoroughly put through their paces mixing-wise,over a long period of time.
Also,the particular listening environment,coupled with an inexperienced ear,are factors to take into consideration.To my knowledge,no reputable studio monitor manufacturer uses a single driver....but perhaps this company you speak of,has some revolutionary-breakthrough technology that's brand new to the market?

I always like to keep an open mind to fresh ideas & ever advancing technology,but I think it's more likely that this company's product is a farce.
Perhaps if I knew who the company was & their history,then perhaps I could research their products for some enlightenment.....better yet,I could contact Ethan Winer via his YouTube account and ask him about this company.


-Thom

[Oren]

Perhaps if I knew who the company was & their history,then perhaps I could research their products for some enlightenment....

Thom,
I can't recall the company who demonstrated the single-driver speaker, but the point they wanted to make is that more drivers and cross-overs in an enclosure don't necessarily result in better audio performance.

Companies that specialize in single-driver speakers (to name just a few) include:
http://www.omegaloudspeakers.com/about/single-drivers
http://www.ejjordan.co.uk/
http://www.thehornshoppe.com/
http://www.commonsenseaudio.com/nirvana.html
http://www.soundscapehifi.com/cain.htm

...I could go on...

[elwoodblues1969]

Oren,

More drivers & a crossover don't necessarily result in better audio?Omega Loudspeakers are flat out saying that crossovers are an obstruction of the signal path & that the need for additional drivers are basically erroneous.

The fact that all of these companies manufacture home entertainment systems,rather than studio systems,really makes me wonder how credible they are.
If a single driver is the most ideal design,then why aren't any of the studio monitor manufacturing companies using this single driver configuration?
Wow....my mind is completely blown......to be continued....

[Marc JX8P]

Just looking from a physics standpoint, a speaker delivering high frequencies has to be able to vibrate very quickly (meaning they can also be quite small to deliver an x amount of spl) while a bass frequency speaker vibrates very slowly, making a larger size necessary for the same spl. Now, while you can use a single speaker, there is an obvious problem as the larger mass of a big speaker is very difficult to vibrate at a high frequency (due to heat buildup as well as the mass) while making a smaller speaker would make it difficult to create enough low frequencies. Hence the difficulties for creating a full range system with single drivers.

Now, introducing crossover filters into the signal path obviously creates potential for coloration of the signal if it's not done well, but splitting the signal over two drivers in general creates potential issues with getting their signals phase-correct. But I think we have to bear in mind that in order to create a full range single speaker has issues in itself and - if it works in a linear fashion over the whole range at all - will probably require a very costly set of materials. On the other hand, two-way speaker systems are very well understood and designed, especially in near and midfield monitor systems, perfectly able to give you a relatively linear, phase correct signal. Having said that, there are very few monitoring setups with two crossovers, so it seems the two-speaker setup is the optimal configuration for that performance with a reasonable price.

[elwoodblues1969]

A very eloquent explanation,Marc.This just confirms my suspicion that some companies will say anything just to promote their sales,by twisting the truth,& omitting vital principles of audio...hoping that the consumer will buy into their marketing speeches.

Since Oren is in the business of mixing,along with him being a very bright individual,I have to give all of his opinions the benefit of the doubt.I've spent the last few years learning tidbits of info from consummate professionals through various audio forums & none of them supported the concept of the single driver configuration as a serious mixing tool.

While I do have somewhat of a grasp on physics,I still become discombobulated at times,due to rival companies having numerous methods of engineering,which modify old designs into upgraded ones,without any drastic changes in materials or cabinet designs.

Some companies place emphasis on the pitfalls of using metal-based dome tweeters,claiming that they're too brash & abrasive sounding(which is true,provided that they are using sub standard materials with a poor design).
On the contrary,metal dome tweeters that incorporate a mixture of materials such as beryllium & titanium & other materials such as aluminum(along with upgraded driver components),will produce a very accurate & smooth sound.....but some companies that want to promote their silk dome tweeters,will tell you that metal dome tweeters are inferior-but of course,they are actually referring to budget-priced metal tweeters.
Back in the day,ribbon tweeters were renowned for their depth,clarity & widened stereo field,but by their very design,were fragile & they burned out easily.
However though,with the revolutionary upgrades in design & materials,ribbon tweeters-especially in the high end range such as with the Adam company,not only have an increased frequency response than they ever did before,but they are also as durable if not more,than dome tweeters.
Still however,many audio engineers will argue that the dispersion pattern of a ribbon tweeter is not as wide as that of a dome tweeter,because the ribbon tweeter does not emit a circular pattern like a dome tweeter does.
Some also say that ribbon tweeters are too bright and that they cause ear fatigue after only a short time,but others claim that ribbon tweeters such as the Adam brand of tweeters,have a very smooth & gentle sound and they can be mixed on all day,without any ear fatigue.

Some will argue that Kevlar bass/mid drivers are lighter in weight than paper cones & vice versa,claiming that one or the other vibrates more rapidly,resulting in a more accurate response....but which is actually lighter in weight?
Some companies will use aluminum cones,or a composite design,which his comprised of either glass & paper,or Kevlar & paper....but if Kevlar is really lighter in weight than paper,why bother with a composite design?

A lot of companies spec sheets are questionable as Ethan Winer has pointed out in his video and with regard too low frequency responses...well...the numbers can be quite dubious.
Reason being,is that while the amplifier may be capable of producing a low end response of say,50Hz in a cabinet with a 5" woofer,this does not mean that this frequency is what you will actually hear,because a poorly designed cabinet will have an inferior roll off point,so that frequency will not make it's way to your ears,because of the degradation of the sound wave.

With the vast onslaught of different materials,cabinet designs,theories & new modifications & inventions in studio monitors,it all becomes very overwhelming & confusing to me at times.

All I really know is what I hear with my own ears & the current monitors that I have in my studio,result in great mixes with minimal effort,9 times out of 10.
I have own many different monitors over the years & I have learned to study as much as I can before a purchase and that I have to be prepared to spend as much as is needed and the 2 way monitor design has worked very well for me thus far & has been the best value.


-Thom

[Oren]

Determining the application of a speaker system - near-field monitor, audio mixing/mastering, home theater, home stereo - would be the first consideration, before selecting components and specifications. One's application will fundamentally affect the choice of speaker type.
The next consideration would be personal preference, because audio is a very personal thing.

After reviewing opinions and information offered by enthusiasts on Kara-Moon (my first audio resource ), I think it is clear that a two-way system is ideal in most situations.

For my taste:

- a set of Bowers&Wilkins DM303 two-way speakers does it for general listening and home theater -
 - http://www.audioreview.com/cat/speakers/bookshelf-speakers/b-and-w/dm303/PRD_125742_4290crx.aspx
 - http://www.google.ca/search?q=B%26W+303&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=aDf&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=rmWTTae8E4rSsAPft53DBQ&ved=0CDEQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=840

- the little Cambridge Soundworks PCWorks 2.1 system handles all of my critical listening duties, with the position of the satellites in relation to subwoofer changing to accomodate near-field monitoring or full room sound -
 - http://www.audioreview.com/cat/speakers/floorstanding-speakers/cambridge-soundworks/pcworks/PRD_119259_1594crx.aspx
 - http://www.google.ca/search?q=cambridge+soundworks+pcworks&start=10&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=u2qTTZnkN4j0tgOG5dnUBQ&ved=0CDcQsAQ4Cg&biw=1280&bih=840

[folderol]

My 2d <- old money

It is very easy to forget the dramatic effect the room dimensions can have on sound, especially at low frequencies where standing waves can cause all sorts of strange resonance and cancellation effects, as can different types of floor and ceiling (floor especially). If you're using near fields the effects are much less noticeable but still there.

The way my kit is setup at the moment I get a 'hole' around 80Hz. Swing the workstation round to a different wall and the hole moves to about 120Hz. Back in the preferred position - which incidentally, the experts would say is the wrong position - I once accidentally turned on the main HiFi speakers as well as the near fields (they share the same amplifier). Suddenly LF performance was a smooth as a baby's bum, but further up the scale it gave a comb filter effect - quite useless!

Now all of this is without doing anything to the amp, speakers or source.

[elwoodblues1969]

To elaborate on the subject of acoustics,I haven't quite invested as much as I should have yet,on acoustical panels....so I was very careful about speaker placement,since I only have a smattering of acoustical foam panels.
I suppose this is a good thing though,since the foam material tends to remove too much of the higher frequencies in a room,as Ethan Winer had pointed out in his video.
In his home theater video,he suggested for those on a budget,to use picture frames & fabric-which will have to suffice,as I am not so hyper-critical about acoustics,that I am willing to spend thousands on professional alternative paneling.


-Thom

[Oren]

In his home theater video,he suggested for those on a budget,to use picture frames & fabric-which will have to suffice,as I am not so hyper-critical about acoustics,that I am willing to spend thousands on professional alternative paneling.

This approach really resonates with my odd sense of things, to the point where I've started a small collection of original oil paintings from yard sales and flea markets - as an acoustic wall treatment. Looks kinda cool... only three accumulated, so far...

[Marc JX8P]

+1 on the acoustics of the room having to be right for any speaker system to sound somewhat linear. Having said that, getting used to a certain type of speaker is also a contributing factor allowing you to judge how a mix would sound by 'knowing' your systems response. A-B'ing between systems is also very good as is going temporarily out of the mixing room and listening to the mix from the corridor.

Considering room acoustics: frames and fabric in itself will do next to nothing, only removing the highest of frequencies. The lower the frequency you want to contain, the fatter the acoustic panel needs to be. you can however use rockwool in a frame, with fabric over it, to create a very effective acoustic panel. I heartily recommend the studio SOS articles on the Sound On Sound website (http://www.soundonsound.com/). These contain very good information on how to approach different acoustic spaces, both with professional acoustic panels and with home-made panels.

About my own mixing situation: I've been using a set of KRK Rokit 5's for years now, but I've also used my Philips computer speakers a lot, especially when quickly building an arrangement. Something about getting to know your speakers, again. It has learned me to be careful with bass/lower mids in any case. Considering acoustic treatment: my room is usually such a mess that there's little in the form of standing waves. ) I do have some auralex panels set up though, to contain some of the bass in the corner directly next to the speakers.