tomer
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by tomer on Nov 29, 2016 14:49:39 GMT
Hi Everyone! I want to upgrade my studio monitors And i think my room is too small. My room is 2.8 meter width 3.3 meter length and 2.85 height can i fit in it Event Opal? i have a window in front of me(not big one 97 x 97 cm) and behind my sweet spot there is my closet which i can't move it and the door at the same wall in the corner what means i can't treat the back of my room. is it possible to make this room treated so ican work with the Opals? (The room is not treated right now!) Pics of my room
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Nov 29, 2016 16:05:39 GMT
If I were you I'd save the $2k on Opals and fill your room with $600 of acoustic treatment.
If you can't move the cabinet, open it up and stuff it with insulation or lots of clothes.
-m
|
|
tomer
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by tomer on Nov 29, 2016 17:14:56 GMT
If I were you I'd save the $2k on Opals and fill your room with $600 of acoustic treatment. If you can't move the cabinet, open it up and stuff it with insulation or lots of clothes. -m Ok and if i will do this treatment the Opal will fit my room?
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Nov 29, 2016 20:43:40 GMT
can i fit in it Event Opal? Sure, why not?
|
|
tomer
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by tomer on Nov 30, 2016 9:14:03 GMT
can i fit in it Event Opal? Sure, why not? Because i tought my room is too small for those monitors
|
|
|
Post by rock on Nov 30, 2016 13:37:20 GMT
I checked the specs. They are 15.4" W, 22.6" H and 15" D so of course they will fit. They also will produce 111 dB spl @ 1 meter so they can get pretty loud if that's what you mean by "fit" but you don't have to turn them all the way up if you don't want to. BTW, you know that mixing at low levels is always recommended right? As a side note, the other day I did something I never did before, to check level balance to see which tracks were too loud/soft, I turned the volume WAY DOWN till some of the tracks/instruments disappeared. What was left was either too loud or the other tracks were too soft. When the volume is up, I noticed that fine level detail was not nearly as noticeable.
As you know, your room is small and nearly cubical; that's the big problem, not the monitors. Any choice of full range, acoustically flat monitors will create the same modal response since it's the room that determines that. So if you must use that room, follow Hexspa's advice and treat your room first. Treat as many of the 12 corners as you can with bass traps. You have to work around the door and cabinet but it can be done.
For the back door corner, a panel on the wall opposing the door and a panel hanging on the door (you'll have to get creative). Above the door corner, treat as usual with a corner bass trap. For the cabinet, if you can't stuff it with insulation or clothes, you can also try to hang panels on the front of the doors. Of course RFZ side and cloud. More wide band absorbers to fill the rest of the back wall and rear side walls if needed.
Measure with REW to track your progress.
Cheers, Rock
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Nov 30, 2016 13:40:36 GMT
I read the manual and there's no specification.
I don't know the scientific basis but sound from speakers needs distance to "bloom".
While you will get the flattest response with the speakers a foot from your ears, I doubt you'll be able to fully appreciate their reproductive capabilities (the sound kind).
So, I'd advocate for getting a bigger room with acoustic treatment over getting expensive monitors.
Then again, I've never had $2k monitors so maybe you can appreciate them.
-m
|
|
|
Post by rock on Nov 30, 2016 22:52:30 GMT
I don't know the scientific basis but sound from speakers needs distance to "bloom". -m I could be wrong but, and with all due respect, needing distance to "bloom" or more commonly "develop" sound like audio myths that have been propagated for decades. By contrast, room treatment to minimize peaks, nulls, modal ringing and creating a RFZ are concepts that do have scientific basis. Cheers, Rock
|
|
tomer
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by tomer on Dec 1, 2016 16:14:56 GMT
Thank you very much! i will try to do my best. Maybe I'm going to take an acoustic pro guy and pay him to do all of that because i have a problematic room and not good one. and i never did an acoustics.
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Dec 1, 2016 19:16:54 GMT
I don't know the scientific basis but sound from speakers needs distance to "bloom". -m I could be wrong but, and with all due respect, needing distance to "bloom" or more commonly "develop" sound like audio myths that have been propagated for decades. By contrast, room treatment to minimize peaks, nulls, modal ringing and creating a RFZ are concepts that do have scientific basis. Cheers, Rock Maybe but is it even disprovable? Maybe in an anechoic chamber there's no difference. Whether it's the direct signal mixing with the room or whatever there seems a definite difference and it's not just stereo width - it applies when I moved the cube. Of course even moving a speaker/your head a small distance changes the response in the room.. Regarding two-way or greater number of drivers there's sense in it - there's directionality of frequencies and in the design of the drivers so there needs to be distance for the sound to mix. If I listen in close proximity to the tweeter I'm going to hear more high end. In the Grammy paper there's a recommended distance (6.5-7.5'). Why? They don't say but they also don't say put the speakers an inch from your ears. Respect to you for reigning in the potentially non-scientific statements though. I'd just like to suggest maybe there hasn't been discovered a way to measure this. Perceptive non-localization of low frequencies isn't directly related to room modes etc. Afaik that's different methods - biological n stuff. *shrug* I like em further away. -m
|
|
|
Post by rock on Dec 2, 2016 0:06:48 GMT
We may be talking about two different things here. The " too small of a room to develop low end myth" is regarding low end as in "this speaker's (or instrument's) low end response is too low for this small room". The fix is treatment.
Sounds like you're referring to more of things like stereo image, which I'll agree has to do with space, so yeah, you've got a good point! But, outdoors (or an anechoic field) have a virtual infinite space so we're back to treatment. Oh well... we can only hope Ethan chimes in so set us on the straight and narrow...
Cheers, Rock
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Dec 2, 2016 11:18:03 GMT
I was thinking about what you said.
Again, maybe a single driver in a special environment would yield the same listening experience near or far but here's an analogy.
Say you have a recording of someone speaking in a gym. You've measured the signal 80dBC at listening position. That's 60dB the direct voice and 20dB of ambience in the audio (hypothetically).
Now move your speaker 10' away. Now you have to turn your speaker up 5dBu to get the same 80dBC at listening position. Essentially, there's going to be 5 more dB of sound in the room.
Therefore the ambience in the audio is louder. That sound is moving around in your room. So I suggest that because the speaker itself is louder, and since sound reflects back to you eventually, it's easier to hear low-level detail in a speaker that's further away so long as the reference SPL at the listening position is the same.
That's just for a single driver. Add multiple drivers and I suspect the loudspeaker system's been designed to be heard at a nominal distance.
And ya, I didn't mean "waves fitting in a room". But don't waves behave differently in a room if they "fit"? (kind of off-topic, feel free to ignore this question or specifically call it out)
Anyway.
-m
NOTE - I think dBu is the correct value of how much you turn up a signal or speaker to get a gain in SPL. I'm guessing this is dependent on the system's sensitivity. I have no electrical engineering background.
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Dec 4, 2016 17:23:10 GMT
Maybe but is it even disprovable? Maybe in an anechoic chamber there's no difference. LOL, yes, it's disprovable. Speakers do not need distance to "bloom," nor do low frequency waves need space to "develop" which is another myth I see repeated. If either of those were true, headphones wouldn't work. The only thing that might "bloom" with distance is room tone.
|
|
|
Post by rock on Dec 5, 2016 0:36:56 GMT
Thanks Ethan,
Yeah, that LF "develop" myth has been out there at least since I was a kid. (I remember my dad telling me that one). But yeah, then I when I got a set of good phones or just listened to LF tones from a good speaker, I eventually questioned that logic but I still hear the myth now and then. Without thinking it through and not understanding the scientific principles, it kinda makes sense so no wonder that myth has been passed along all these years. I guess that's the nature of myths.
Cheers, Rock
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Dec 5, 2016 16:26:09 GMT
Ok. But then why is a nominal distance suggested in the Grammy paper?
Can we at least agree that sound stage/imaging opens up with proportional distance and amplitude?
-m
|
|