|
Post by Ethan Winer on Feb 26, 2016 19:22:14 GMT
Rather than me download your files and try to null them, you do that first and let us know what happens. Then I can do that if for some reason your tests are inconclusive.
--Ethan
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Feb 25, 2016 17:10:13 GMT
Thanks for moving this here Michael. I'll also repeat what I told you for the benefit of others reading:
Hans is wrong, and I posted the comment below on his video. As for your own tests, there are many reasons the sound might change, or only seem to change. If you'd like to discuss this further, I'll be glad to elaborate if you post what you wrote above in my Audio Expert forum linked below. Here's my video comment on the Hans video:
I'll be glad to listen to any example files you create and post. But understand that sample rate comparisons are difficult to construct properly. You have to record the identical source (same performance) into both devices at once. I suppose you could use a Wave file as the source and record that once and then record it again at a different sample rate. But you can't sing or play the trumpet etc into a microphone twice in a row and expect a valid comparison, because too many things change from one performance to another.
One common way to test this is to record at a high sample rate, then down-sample to a lower rate and see if you can hear a difference. But it's important that the conversion algorithm is highly accurate, otherwise you might be hearing artifacts from the conversion rather than a true difference between sample rates.
The reason I'm skeptical of any benefit from high sample rates is because I know that humans can't hear ultrasonic frequencies. And that's all that's gained from using a faster rate. There have been many theories put forth over time to explain why it's important to capture and play back frequencies higher than anyone can hear. But all of those theories I'm aware of have been debunked for various reasons.
--Ethan
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Feb 25, 2016 16:54:36 GMT
As I explain in my Audio Expert book, electricity is more difficult to grasp than water flow because you can hear water as it runs through the pipes, and you can see it leaking out of a faucet if the rubber washer is old and no longer seals well. So at some level it requires a "leap of faith" to accept that electricity is real. Of course, you can intentionally give yourself a shock to prove that it's real. Take a 9 volt battery and touch both terminals to your tongue. The main difference between electricity and water is electricity needs a return path in order to flow, where water goes from one place to another via a single path. But the common analogies still apply: Water pressure is like voltage because it has the potential to release energy, but only if you open the faucet. (Voltage is sometimes called "potential.") The quality of water is similar to current (amperes). The amount of water that flows in gallons per minute is the same as power (watts). The total amount of water that flows over time is like Kilowatt Hours - the measure of how much electricity was used that the electric company charges you for. I found this image that perhaps shows better than I can explain: There are many other images that, when viewed as a group, might help further: www.google.com/search?q=electrical+current+water+analogy&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X--Ethan
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Feb 24, 2016 19:37:42 GMT
This sounds like a problem inside the right speaker - it probably works and stops working more or less randomly or when it's jostled. So there's probably a loose connection inside. Since you tried two sound cards and two sets of wires, that rules out everything other than the speaker. Have you tried banging on it with your fist (not too hard!) when it stops working? Or do you have a portable CD player or MP3 player you can connect to just the one speaker, using yet another wire, to see if it still has the same problem?
--Ethan
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Feb 22, 2016 19:23:05 GMT
The larger the bass traps, and the more you have, the better. Always.
--Ethan
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Feb 19, 2016 19:58:29 GMT
Also, a tiny vocal booth needs to be 100 percent treated with thick absorption.
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Feb 19, 2016 19:57:58 GMT
A rear wall always needs treatment - bass trapping plus either absorption or diffusion. Your basic plan looks fine, and symmetry matters mostly in the front of the room and not much in the rear, especially if the rear absorbs fully. However you can attach absorption on the side walls is fine, and it doesn't matter what's behind the absorbers as long as the absorbers are symmetrical in size and placement.
--Ethan
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Feb 18, 2016 17:32:46 GMT
It is good to have windows in front wall, because there is no great need to absorb higher frequencies, because loudspeakers are playing in the other way, so the windows can stay free of absorbtion panels and daylight can enter in the room. At lower frequencies, where loudspeakers play omnidirekcional, the windows actually play the role of low frequency absorbers in a way. So the placement is probably good, don't you think? Also, If i put my speakers on the opposite side of the room, I would not be able to treat a back wall (because of a windows), which is the most critical wall beside the areas of early reflections at the side walls. Yes, this is exactly correct. So your drawing showing the speakers in front of the windows facing down toward the rear is the best choice. --Ethan
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Feb 16, 2016 18:25:11 GMT
Again, if this is the only room you have then all you can do is treat it as best you can. I imagine with enough bass traps you could get the low end within a 10 dB window, which is pretty good.
--Ethan
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Feb 15, 2016 16:50:14 GMT
If this is the only room you have, then it has to be worth treating. The alternative (small room with no treatment) is even worse. Much worse. The good news is whatever treatment you get now can move with you in the future if you get a new place. The first thing to consider is the setup. I assume the door at the top of your drawing is the entrance to the room. In that case your loudspeakers should be centered left-right in front of the bottom wall, pointing up so the door is in the rear of the room behind you. Then you'll treat the left and right side-wall reflection points with absorbers, plus as many bass traps as you can manage in corners and on the back wall. In order to suggest specific RealTraps products I'd need to know your budget, and I'd rather not do that here. Do me a favor? Email RealTraps manager Jim Lindenschmidt from the Contact page of our web site, and he can give you specific product advice. Include the link to this forum thread so he can see your drawing and know what I already suggested. --Ethan
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Feb 10, 2016 18:43:42 GMT
I suggest you measure from 20 Hz because your speakers still have some output below 50 Hz. I have no idea what Fuzzmeasure does for the response below an arbitrary low cut-off frequency. That's a question better suited to Chris Liscio who wrote and supports the software. But if you measure from 20 Hz, which is a good idea anyway, that avoids these questions in the first place.
--Ethan
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Feb 8, 2016 14:16:15 GMT
Yes, the rigid ceiling above is where low frequency reflections occur, so that's where you'll measure from. Also, the ideal speaker height puts the tweeters at ear level, so that's another consideration. Sometimes it makes sense to put speakers upside down, if that gets the cabinet at a better location for bass and keeps the tweeters aligned with your ears. In the end, the only way to know for sure where is best is to measure as you experiment.
--Ethan
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Feb 8, 2016 14:12:02 GMT
Yes, for looks. Again, some people believe that wood sounds different, so their motive is sound more than looks. But IMO they're fooling themselves.
--Ethan
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Feb 7, 2016 18:25:47 GMT
I'm sure some people believe that wood sounds different than drywall or other common reflecting surfaces, but I assessed this a few years ago and concluded that any differences are minor and occur only at the very highest frequencies: Does Wood Really Sound Warm?Of course, wood looks very nice! I have a wood floor in my home studio, and if I had a million bucks to put into a new recording studio I'd probably have wood walls in places too.
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Feb 5, 2016 20:49:19 GMT
|
|