GoodSoundClub - Romy the Cat's Audio Site

Audio Discussions
Topic: Listening room acoustics

Page 1 of 1 (5 items)

Posted by Romy the Cat on 07-05-2012

In reference to the post Agile Room Acoustic Treatment? in the “Romy The Cat's new Listening Room” thread.

I am slowly contemplating to practice SOME reinforcement of live instruments in my listening room. It is mostly string chamber group. Even those the musicians expressed compliments to the sound of my listening room and claimed that they like it I disagree and I feel that it needs to be very different from what it is now, I mean for live music. So, I am consider to use my purely methods to shape the acoustic in the room in the “proper” way. That might be very interesting. The musicians play in the same room where Macondo live, so it is God sent opportunity to use the elements of Macondo for converting the sound of my listening room into the sound of the Concert Hall the I like. Will my playback be able to work in injection mode alone with live instruments? This is a big question and I have no answer yet. For now I need to find a few microphones, mixing board for 4-5 inputs and microphone preamps…

The Cat

Posted by Paul S on 07-05-2012

This might be an excuse to get/play with the Sound Man's staple, the parametric equalizer (analog units are still available). While it is possible, it is not probable that you will wind up wanting "flat" reinforcement of the sound just as the mics "hear" it, not to mention that the mics/amps/speakers/room will write their own curve(s), in any case. While this option too often spells the end of decent sound reinforcement, I have heard it done well, so I know it can "work", and I have also seen/heard acceptable reinforced sound that was subsequently picked up and recorded via a lone figure 8 or similar, if this also interests you.

Best regards,
Paul

Posted by Romy the Cat on 07-05-2012

I do not think is has anything to do with parametric equalizer or writing own curves, at least I have no interest in it.
The immediate questions that I would like to have answered are following:

1) Can Macondo or elements of Macondo produce ANY sounds that woukld be compatible to play with live instrument in the room?
2) If above is affirmative than what kind sound emitting pattern from playback would be beneficial?
3) If above is still affirmative and I presume the output of playback would be less than 5% of total sound of the room then can digital pressing be use to factor the necessary reverberation filed in the room (it would great for low-end and headphones)

I am not in hurry with those discoveries but I think it would be fun to experiment with it. I personally predict that Macondo will not be able to be useful and perhaps only Upperbass and ULF channels might see a light of use.

The Cat

Posted by Paul S on 07-07-2012

OK, given my usual inattention, it took me a couple of readings to understand that you refer to the inherent differences between the rote sound from sound reinforcement tools and that from home hi-fi. Of course I have gone on ad nauseum about these differences in approach and results, and I have been cautionary about using pro tools in the home for hi-fi, because I have failed at it, and I have only heard good results on a couple of occasions, and never with "serious" classical music.

Good for you if it all comes together, but no surprise and no demerits if it doesn't. I'm sure you realize that EQ needn't be a full Board in order to slope the sound to suit the conditions, and/or any mics used for recording en total.

Best regards,
Paul S

Posted by skushino on 07-07-2012

I've been reading about the acoustic characteristics of the world's great symphony halls, like Boston and the Concertgebouw. Did you know that Sabine, Berenak, and Cyril Harris mathematically defined those characteristics, using metrics like RT-60, clarity, intimacy, warmth, spaciousness, and background noise? The reverb time for the great halls is around 2 sec for symphonic music, around 1.5 sec for opera (due to voice clarity). For smaller rooms used as monitoring studios (~ 3000 - 15,000 ft^3), the suggested reverb time is around .35 - .9 sec.

The audio community standard wisdom for treating listening rooms seems to be as much bass trapping as possible. This seems completely opposite of efforts to prolong reverb time. Given a desire to extend bass reverb time, wouldn't it be better to minimize bass treatment, while treating some reflecting surfaces for MF and HF absorption? In other words, even if it is physically impossible to recreate symphony hall acoustics at home, if one wants to at least suggest longer reverb at LF, compared with MF and HF, bass trapping seems to be the wrong direction.

From the pictures of your listening room, and your past experiments with RT60, is this consistent with your experience? bty, I posted in this thread because it seems like a room with some effort at recreating symphony hall acoustics would also be a wonderful venue for live chamber music.

Page 1 of 1 (5 items)