MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index
 FAQ & Terms of UseFAQ & Terms Of Use   Wiggler RadioMW Radio   Muff Wiggler TwitterTwitter   Support the site @ PatreonPatreon 
 SearchSearch   RegisterSign up   Log inLog in 
WIGGLING 'LITE' IN GUEST MODE

Monitors
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> General Gear Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 10, 11, 12  Next [all]
Author Monitors
milkshake
BailyDread wrote:
what constitutes science changes all the time and theories that were regarded as obvious one day get refuted and overwritten by different theories the next... consider the discovery that what were considered "stars" are now known to be galaxies each with billions of stars within them. if you had committed to the earlier position, you would have be proven wrong when further discoveries were made. better to just hold the conclusions of the science people tentatively and to consider the utility of the different systems of explanation relative to the task at hand. consider Newtonian mechanics -- good for engineering here on earth, bad for explanations within astrophysics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pessimistic_induction

sorry for thread creep but asking for examples of how often science has been wrong is a little meh


I guess we use a different definition of science.

But you brought up newtonian mechanics, so let's use that example.
What is exactly the difference between newtonian mechanics and GR?
General relativity is exactly the same as NM, with an adjustment for high density energy. They have to be the same because both are about gravity and that hasn't changed from the start of the universe.
GR completely envelopes NM and expands upon it.
Of cause we know where GR doesn't hold up anymore, inside black holes for instance. And the successor of GR must completely envelope NM and GR.

What this means in more abstract terms is, that once a scientific discovery is made, it's there for ever and ever and ever.

So now let's apply this to speakers.
First it was discovered that a flat on axis frequency response is nessesarry for good sound.
This scientific discovery is still valid and it will be valid for ever and ever and ever.
Now this is expanded to the polar response of speakers.


Iow the core remains and details get added.
BailyDread
If I have a lunch date that is tentative, that means that unless some other factor interferes, I will be getting lunch at that date. It doesn’t mean I am rejecting that lunch date. Similarly, if I hold a scientific theory tentatively, that means that unless some other factor interferes, I will be going with that theory. Failure to hold a scientific theory tentatively means failing to account for the possibility that some other factor may pop up which may cause the theory to fall short. So, failure to hold a theory tentatively means failing to expose it to factors that may disprove it, which is the entire point of the endeavor. We have a pool of theories we hold tentatively until they are proven false, at which point our pool of things to hold tentatively shrinks and we can definitely say “NOT X”. The aim is to effectively and efficiently produce as many “not X” results as possible so the number of possibilities that may be true is limited. We can claim to know that “not X”, and every X should be held as though it entirely possible that some observation comes along makes us slap a negation in front of it. Revising it changes what *it* is, and produces a new X that can be refuted. The former, pre-revision X is out, though, and just because some elements or variables within it remain constant doesn’t change the fact that changes have been made and you have a new proposition. So, if you had committed to the previous, pre-revision X instead of holding that it may need revision to account for some observation, at which point you would have a new, logically distinct X, you would be unable to do this.

That was my whole point. How this is contentious among people that profess to value science is beyond me but the internet never fails to surprise.

Now I’m really out of here, peace out!
Hermetech Mastering
X or not X?
Do you mean speaker thread or not speaker thread?

I still love my ATCs. Miley Cyrus
milkshake
BailyDread wrote:
If I have a lunch date that is tentative, that means that unless some other factor interferes, I will be getting lunch at that date. It doesn’t mean I am rejecting that lunch date. Similarly, if I hold a scientific theory tentatively, that means that unless some other factor interferes, I will be going with that theory. Failure to hold a scientific theory tentatively means failing to account for the possibility that some other factor may pop up which may cause the theory to fall short. So, failure to hold a theory tentatively means failing to expose it to factors that may disprove it, which is the entire point of the endeavor. We have a pool of theories we hold tentatively until they are proven false, at which point our pool of things to hold tentatively shrinks and we can definitely say “NOT X”. The aim is to effectively and efficiently produce as many “not X” results as possible so the number of possibilities that may be true is limited. We can claim to know that “not X”, and every X should be held as though it entirely possible that some observation comes along makes us slap a negation in front of it. Revising it changes what *it* is, and produces a new X that can be refuted. The former, pre-revision X is out, though, and just because some elements or variables within it remain constant doesn’t change the fact that changes have been made and you have a new proposition. So, if you had committed to the previous, pre-revision X instead of holding that it may need revision to account for some observation, at which point you would have a new, logically distinct X, you would be unable to do this.

That was my whole point. How this is contentious among people that profess to value science is beyond me but the internet never fails to surprise.

Now I’m really out of here, peace out!


I think you should read the wiki link you posted a bit more carefully.
Sinamsis
Ok, tangential but still on topic. So like I said, I like my Focals, but in my previous room I had minimal treatment and I hadn't been getting the most out of them. I'm in my hopefully permanent room now and I'm trying to really maximize my space. The room is really weird shaped and asymmetric, so it's never going to be perfect. That said the main part of the room is a square (there are a few nooks on three of the sides more or less). I've got some nice panels mounted on the walls (I went with a variety of Primacoustic panels and bass traps). I just had the contractor who's working on some other stuff (including getting a dedicated 30 amp line to the studio, yeah!) mount some ceiling panels as well, suspended over my listening position. So here's the questions:

- Do you angle these ceiling panels?
- How far from the ceiling should these be suspended? When they initially hung them, they were about 2 feet from the ceiling, which is probably a 9 feet or so high. It made me feel really claustrophobic so I asked them to set it to leave about a 10 inch gap. I'm wondering if they're too high now.

I know this is tangential to some degree, but I think you have to talk about room treatment when talking about monitors.
slumberjack
an asymmetric room will always be better than a rectangular which alway be better than a square. angle your panels is important i think. and the panels should at least cover the reflections at your listening position. if you angle the panels differently it's again better if you put them all the same way which would lead again into a symmetric array.

i'm not a specialist but my room sounds pretty good to me. a friend will come tomorrow to measure it again and then i will probably be able to give you another quote with pictures.
milkshake
Floyd Toole on reflections

Quote:


The topic of first reflections is discussed at length in Chapter 7 in my book. The practice of absorbing first lateral reflections developed in recording control rooms. As I show evidence of, in the early days especially, pro monitors had dreadful off-axis performance (examples shown in Chapter 18 and elsewhere). The only way to improve the sound quality was to absorb the off-axis sound, which led to the fashion of putting the loudspeakers in a "dead" end of the room and providing some reflections via diffusers in a "live" end. As discussed in section 7.5 there are reasons why professionals may have a different perspective on listening than recreational listeners - hearing loss being one.

Improved loudspeakers have changed the rules.

Common materials used for absorbing first reflections, typically 1 or 2-inch fiberglass, do not eliminate reflections, they just turn the treble down (Figures 7.6 and 7.10), which is a coloration in addition to imperfect off-axis radiation. Few people are aware of this fact and purveyors of acoustical materials do not advertise it - traditional absorption coefficients are measured in diffuse sound fields - reverberation chambers, not listening rooms. Effective materials are not fashionably thin, and decorative "acoustical" fabric covers often reflect high frequencies (Figure 7.10). All is not as advertised.

My research focussed on understanding the interactions of loudspeakers and rooms. It has turned out that, with well designed loudspeakers the room matters much less than many have believed. With flawed loudspeakers room treatments cannot salvage truly good sound. I have read that one may need 40 or more sound absorbing panels and bass traps in a room - not my room! There are better ways.


source
milkshake
More

Quote:



Folks who sell room treatments talk as though good sound is impossible without it, sometimes a lot of it. If you start with an empty room, as in a dedicated home theater, there is no doubt that treatment is necessary to bring the room acoustics to a desirable level. If the room is carpeted, furnished with chairs, sofas, paraphernalia of life, including some drapes, nothing further may be necessary. So, it depends . . . I discuss some of this in the companion website to my book, which is open access: www.routledge.com/cw/toole.

My book is full of commentary on room EQ, much of it negative, except for the bass, where it I almost essential. Full bandwidth EQ, as frequently practised, is capable of degrading the sound from well designed loudspeakers. When I was teaching acoustics to CEDIA classes of installers I would ask the question about room acoustics. In those days, up to 2 years ago, the answer was predominantly "off". I still claim that EQ is useful at low frequencies, especially when combined with the proper use of multiple subs - no bass traps necessary, although they do no harm, except to the visual environment. See Chapter 8 in my book for full details. This paper has most of the "technical" arguments: Toole, F. E. (2015). “The Measurement and Calibration of Sound Reproducing Systems”, J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 63, pp.512-541. This is an open-access paper available to non-members at www.aes.org. http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17839
milkshake
What are the continuous spl demands for an ultra high end commercial mixing facility?
felixer
BailyDread wrote:
what constitutes science changes all the time and theories that were regarded as obvious one day get refuted and overwritten by different theories the next...

exactly. and besides, a lot (most?) science today would be 'cirumstancial evidence' in a court case. nobody has been inside a black hole. or even close to one. so it is all done with radiotelescopes and statistical hocus-pokus. (i only trust the statistics i forged myself!). i have been involved in science and let me tell you there is a lot of wishfull thinking and treason there ... and because few can check those 'facts' it is a matter of believe. and obviously publicity ... if you hear something often enough you might be tempted to believe it ...

and for spl levels: i think loud isn't everything. it might impress the customers but you don't get good mixes that way. i usually play at maybe 90 dB. and only at the end i might play it loud, just to see if it holds up. but i will also play it really soft over small speakers. methinks it is a waste of money to get a large system for just those few occasions. better invest in really good nearfields. and then not some trendy looking-good stuff. and take your time to get to know them. i have been using alesis monitor-one's for years. not the best speakers around but i will continue to use 'm. simply because i know how things should sound over them.
TXBDan
BailyDread wrote:
If I have a lunch date that is tentative, that means that unless some other factor interferes, I will be getting lunch at that date. It doesn’t mean I am rejecting that lunch date. Similarly, if I hold a scientific theory tentatively, that means that unless some other factor interferes, I will be going with that theory. Failure to hold a scientific theory tentatively means failing to account for the possibility that some other factor may pop up which may cause the theory to fall short. So, failure to hold a theory tentatively means failing to expose it to factors that may disprove it, which is the entire point of the endeavor. We have a pool of theories we hold tentatively until they are proven false, at which point our pool of things to hold tentatively shrinks and we can definitely say “NOT X”. The aim is to effectively and efficiently produce as many “not X” results as possible so the number of possibilities that may be true is limited. We can claim to know that “not X”, and every X should be held as though it entirely possible that some observation comes along makes us slap a negation in front of it. Revising it changes what *it* is, and produces a new X that can be refuted. The former, pre-revision X is out, though, and just because some elements or variables within it remain constant doesn’t change the fact that changes have been made and you have a new proposition. So, if you had committed to the previous, pre-revision X instead of holding that it may need revision to account for some observation, at which point you would have a new, logically distinct X, you would be unable to do this.

That was my whole point. How this is contentious among people that profess to value science is beyond me but the internet never fails to surprise.

Now I’m really out of here, peace out!


What are you talking about? Science is not the process of elimination. You don't prove negatives.

But yes, science is not having all knowledge now. It is the objective continuous pursuit of knowledge. It's literally the best humans can do to understand the natural world. The fact that science advances is proof of the process, not that its baseless.
milkshake
felixer wrote:
BailyDread wrote:
what constitutes science changes all the time and theories that were regarded as obvious one day get refuted and overwritten by different theories the next...

exactly. and besides, a lot (most?) science today would be 'cirumstancial evidence' in a court case. nobody has been inside a black hole. or even close to one. so it is all done with radiotelescopes and statistical hocus-pokus. (i only trust the statistics i forged myself!). i have been involved in science and let me tell you there is a lot of wishfull thinking and treason there ... and because few can check those 'facts' it is a matter of believe. and obviously publicity ... if you hear something often enough you might be tempted to believe it ...

These remarks are completely out of context.
We are talking here about applied science. We know it's right because it works. Beyond that is pointless to argue about.

Quote:

and for spl levels: i think loud isn't everything. it might impress the customers but you don't get good mixes that way. i usually play at maybe 90 dB. and only at the end i might play it loud, just to see if it holds up. but i will also play it really soft over small speakers. methinks it is a waste of money to get a large system for just those few occasions. better invest in really good nearfields. and then not some trendy looking-good stuff. and take your time to get to know them. i have been using alesis monitor-one's for years. not the best speakers around but i will continue to use 'm. simply because i know how things should sound over them.

Thanks for not answering my question.

120dB seems adequate to me but maybe have a little bit more headroom?
slumberjack
speaking of subwoofers:
neumann is going to put out a new, smaller product called KH 750. 10", sealed / no bassport

https://en-de.neumann.com/search?q=kh7%20750

This is fun!
balbibou
I'd like to upgrade my old prodipes.

Someone got a pair of APS KLASIK ?
felixer
milkshake wrote:

120dB seems adequate to me but maybe have a little bit more headroom?

rediculous! 120 dB may be a level for a loud band (i never go over 110dB, that's c-weighted and peak) but it is stupid to play that loud in a studio. you are making a produkt for home-use. so who has a system that will go that loud? or the ability to use it without neighbours and the police quickly gathering around. that might cost you a frontdoor ... quite apart from the fact that you are damaging your ears. be my guest but i'll stay outside ...
Panason
felixer wrote:

rediculous! 120 dB may be a level for a loud band (i never go over 110dB, that's c-weighted and peak) but it is stupid to play that loud in a studio. you are making a produkt for home-use. so who has a system that will go that loud?


Some of us are not making products for home use but tracks that will (hopefully) be played on big sound systems... not that monitoring at 120 db is a good idea.
Hermetech Mastering
Average of 77dB SPL Slow C Weighting here, for everyday playback, monitoring and mastering. Crank it low, and crank it high, for final checks, but 77 is where it's at for me, in my room.
milkshake
felixer wrote:
milkshake wrote:

120dB seems adequate to me but maybe have a little bit more headroom?

rediculous! 120 dB may be a level for a loud band (i never go over 110dB, that's c-weighted and peak) but it is stupid to play that loud in a studio. you are making a produkt for home-use. so who has a system that will go that loud? or the ability to use it without neighbours and the police quickly gathering around. that might cost you a frontdoor ... quite apart from the fact that you are damaging your ears. be my guest but i'll stay outside ...


The reason for asking has nothing to do with common sense, no one with more than 2 functioning brainells would play that loud in a room with people having no hearing protection.
It has to do with the spec itself: Max spl. And more is better, as paying customers of commercial studios often don't have more than 2 functioning braincells. It brings in the money, at least it's a factor.
milkshake
Hermetech Mastering wrote:
Average of 77dB SPL Slow C Weighting here, for everyday playback, monitoring and mastering. Crank it low, and crank it high, for final checks, but 77 is where it's at for me, in my room.


I do the same thing.
Yodhan
I have had a pair of Alesis M1A mkii speakers for a while, but one just crapped out on me. I am now in the market for a new pair. Haven’t made a list of what I am thinking about yet, but I will probably go with 8in woofers again. Not the biggest fan of subwoofer setups. I also mix with AKG K240 headphones.
stocker
Yodhan wrote:
I have had a pair of Alesis M1A mkii speakers for a while, but one just crapped out on me. I am now in the market for a new pair. Haven’t made a list of what I am thinking about yet, but I will probably go with 8in woofers again. Not the biggest fan of jackpotjoy promo code setups. I also mix with AKG K240 headphones.

Works for me.
Funky40
Hermetech Mastering wrote:
Average of 77dB SPL Slow C Weighting here,

this is how loud when compared to two persons speaking with each other in that room ?
just to give a rough idea wink
Hermetech Mastering
Funky40 wrote:
Hermetech Mastering wrote:
Average of 77dB SPL Slow C Weighting here,

this is how loud when compared to two persons speaking with each other in that room ?
just to give a rough idea wink


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure#Examples_of_sound_pressur e
felixer
milkshake wrote:
as paying customers of commercial studios often don't have more than 2 functioning braincells.

alas, very true ...
calaveras
from what I understand, 80db is about where the Fletcher Munson curve is flattest. It's also on the edge of hearing damage.
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> General Gear Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 10, 11, 12  Next [all]
Page 11 of 12
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group