Archive for category Studio Control Room

Why use a mix of objective and subjective goals to make a great sounding space?

With the ability to measure and analyze every detail of an acoustic environment, sometimes we forget about the basic fact that it should sound the way we want it to sound. There are scenarios where objective measurement is important, desired, and even required. If there is a physical safety concern that may damage hearing ( loud noises, machinery, etc.), a need to have safety information understood (evacuation/safety notices or alarms, etc.), absolute sound privacy is required (HIPAA regulations, government security, or legal need…), or the need for speech clarity for education… often we require some guidelines be met to insure the acoustics meet a decided standard for performance. These standards use objective measurement and data to make these determinations. There isn’t a governing body that regulates how your home theater should perform, or how an office needs to sound (beyond the safety and privacy concerns mentioned above.)

Listening spaces vary in their construction, and are as unique as their owners.

Entertainment venues, theaters, churches, commercial spaces, restaurants, offices, and residential spaces have very little regulation, and while there are many occasions that testing is used to improve the performance of these spaces, there are some environments where the effort to measure and quantify everything can get in the way of the goal of making a great acoustic space. If you wanted to compare different small “critical listening environments” (mixing and mastering studios are examples of these), there would be some general commonalities in their construction and treatment. Many are built to minimize parallel reflections, have short reverb times, symmetric placement of source speakers, control first reflections, and balance the frequency performance of the space.

A “ruler-flat” frequency response shouldn’t be the acoustic goal.

“Balancing the frequency performance of a space” doesn’t mean “attain ruler-flat frequency response across the entire human hearing range.” There are several reasons that the “ruler-flat” interpretation is counterproductive – the first being that it is nearly impossible to attain in any room. Second, is that everyone perceives sound differently. As humans age, almost all people will experience some degree of “presbycusis,” which is slow decline in high-frequency sensitivity that comes with age. If you are lucky enough to reach a ripe old age, there is a 60% – 80% chance (depending on the study you read) that your high-frequency hearing won’t be what it was when you were young. But even with that factor removed, when your hearing was at its best, your personal perception of sound is different from every other person – making sound, by definition, subjective.

Ruler-flat response isn’t the goal in world-class mixing rooms… the goal is having a room you can use to make world-class mixes! (Note the variety of treatment and source speakers to create an environment that allows mixing music that will “translate.”)

The closest you can get to ruler-flat performance is to remove the room entirely and get some high quality headphones – but you may still find yourself tweaking the equalization curve to your preference. There are many people who feel that headphones sound unnatural, or that they are uncomfortable to listen to for long periods of time. Even the best mixing studios are not completely flat. Also, you will see many different sets of speakers in these spaces… or even headphones. These different sources are to compare how a mix will sound in different environments… and that the mix will “translate” in different listening scenarios. These environments which people will listen to music in vary to include outdoors, bathroom, kitchen, movie theater, grocery store, car, truck, SUV, convertible, living room, and more… coming from sources like phone speakers, headphones, assistants like echo and Google, bookshelf speakers, sound bars, audiophile equipment, movie theater sound systems, and an array of automotive audio systems.

Tuning a live room for recording classical banjo.
Above: Bass traps in the corners, Sonora® panels on the walls, and diffusers to break up the large flat ceiling… This room is for recording, but it has many materials that will work to improve sound in any space.

Start with the basics.

If you are making a space for critical listening, there are some objective guides that will help you. If building from scratch, build with a geometry that will reduce room modes and parallel surfaces. Reduce reflections that will interfere with the source. Reduce reverb time. Control the bass response to reduce build up. These can all be readily calculated, measured, and controlled with bass traps, absorption, and diffusion. Most of the time, just following these objective guides will get you a room that will sound subjectively “good.”

After you get that far, you could continue trying to measure the room and tweak the performance to try and attain the unattainable ruler-flat response… or you could listen to music in your room and decide with you ears what should to be done to make it sound how you want. There are many subjective arguments people make about why they think something sounds better. There are philosophical arguments about listening to it “as the engineer/artist intended.” There are debates about if you should equalize music at all – even if you are in the majority of the aging population who may need to give the high-frequencies a nudge to experience the sizzle of Stevie Wonder’s glorious high-hat mastery.

When it comes to your own space… if it sounds good to you… it’s right. By following a few objective guidelines to get you in the arena, you can tweak the last bit with your ears until you are experiencing the material the way you prefer it to sound.

, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Similar, Yet Different: Model C vs. Model D!

In this installment of “Similar, Yet Different,” we take a good look at two very different looking diffusers in the 2’x2′ size… the classic ArtDiffusor® Model C and the organic, rippled ArtDiffusor® Model D – while there are some similarities, there are some key differences in how they look (obviously) and how they perform. 

Quick Similarities.

The ArtDiffusor® Model C and Model D are both 2’x2′ diffusers which are made to be either wall mounted or installed in a standard drop-tile ceiling grid. They are both formed from a Class A fire-rated polymer in a single piece. Both are mathematical diffusers, which create their different physical features in a “form follows function” methodology. They also cover roughly the same frequency bands, with some minor variation in how they execute their control.

Difference in Math

The Model C is an interesting configuration. Often you will see quadratic residue diffusers with flat blocks or wells in a relatively standard quadratic cell formula configuration. The Model C runs in a much different alternating binary configuration. The basic idea is that cells are placed in a 45° array with each cell adjacency calculated as an alternating array of higher and lower cells starting in the middle and working in a pattern of alternating low/high cell clusters decreasing toward the edges of the diffuser. These diffusers also do not have flat tops on the blocks – they are angled at 10°. The orientation is then rotated in 90° steps in a pattern that maximizes the spatial redistribution of reflected sound. This was a vast design departure over the original quadratic design, and created a diffusion profile that was distinctly different.

ArtDiffusor® Model C array on a hanging trap.

The Model D was an even greater departure. It began with a Maximum Length Sequence (MLS) concept that first changed the varied straight channels into rings of different dimensions. These rings then broke from the MLS mold by getting varied height profiles based on the QRD sequence. As if having different size rings at different heights wasn’t enough… the randomness was further perpetuated through a Boolean process of assigning certain rings a random property that would either add or subtract height from any other ring that they crossed. Finally, the entire surface geometry was smoothed using a bicubic interpolation, creating the organic undulating surface which gracefully spans the entire profile.

A close-up look at the Model D shows the detail of the overlapping rings of different sizes and highs and how the Booloan math effects them.

What this difference in math does to the acoustic performance.

The Model C has a nice even diffusion profile through it’s primary working range. This is a product of the QRD design and binary distribution. The set size for the blocks guarantees a solid primary frequency range from about 1KHz to over 4Khz. This tunes the Model C squarely in the most sensitive bands of the human hearing range. Below this range the device becomes a bit of an absorber. Above this range and the performance becomes more effective at intervals, which can be seen in the areas of wide diffusion at 6KHz – 18 KHz. These repeating zones are common in “stepped” quadratic designs. Due to the heights of the well being at specific intervals, the intervals repeat at octaves of their effective bands. 

The Model C shows its performance in solid 1KHz-4KHz bands with banding both horizontally in vertically at regular intervals as the frequencies increase.

The Model D doesn’t have the same stepping. The spline interpolation and the random Boolean shifts smooth the transition from one quadratic height to the next, and the MLS sequence causes a bit of a high-pass filter pushing the start of the primary range to around 2KHz – which is a little higher than the Model C. The main difference is that once the Model D starts it’s range it diffuses everything up to and over 20KHz without the banding that can happen in other quadratic designs. 

The Model D shows a wide, asymmetric response starting around 2KHz and travelling up the full spectrum.

Another difference in symmetry.

The ArtDiffusor® Model C is a fairly symmetric design, but it’s 45° angle pushes that symmetry along the diagonal (corner to corner) across the unit. The asymmetry is subtle but allows for enough variation to account for any “lobing” issues that can occur in more simple geometric devices The 10° block faces being at varied orientations is key to increasing the spatial directivity over the older “flat-faced” Quadratics. This was a very novel design when it was first introduced, and those benefits are crucial to the longevity of the Model C’s reign – It just works. It’s predictable and musical… and that’s why it’s here to stay!

The ArtDiffusor® Model D is a completely different animal from the Model C when it comes to symmetry… as a matter of fact… there isn’t really much on it that is symmetric! The Model D was designed as a departure from symmetry. Focusing on the mid to high frequencies, which are very specular, the organic geometry creates an asymmetric reflection pattern. This pattern can be used to steer the sound into a wider field.. and that profile changes with the wavelength of the sound that hits it. This steering ability and the wide frequency range has made the Model D a favorite in mixing and mastering environments, where they can get smooth performance through the entire frequency spectrum.

An array of Model D’s on the back wall of a small mixing studio.

How these differences benefit everyone.

We have stated before that there isn’t really a one-size-fits-all solution in acoustics. Many environments will use various treatments to achieve their desired goals. You will often have different devices to address different problems, in different frequencies, in different locations, in the same space. Bass traps for controlling the lows. Absorption to reduce gross energy across the board. Large geometric surfaces to break up parallel reflections and steer the projection of sources. Mid range diffusers to create clarity to the sources and reduce artifacts. High frequency diffusers to reduce flutter and add a feeling of envelopment and airiness in the space. These devices all have their place – from the smaller listening rooms, to critical listening environments, and large multifunction spaces and venues.

It is also worth noting that these two devices have a very different aesthetic visually. The classic blocks of the Model C have become a signature look for quality sound environments, and people recognize them as they would classic geometric pyramids and barrels. The Model D aesthetic provides a visual accent that people take advantage of to set their space apart from others. The undulating, asymmetric pattern changes drastically when you rotate the individual units in the array. This allows for not only varied acoustic performance, but also a unique visual possibilities – with numerous variations.

The ArtDiffusor® Model C and Model D are two tools that are used to craft ideal listening environments around the world… and in those roles they are indeed Similar, Yet Different.

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Similar, Yet Different: Aeolian® vs. MiniAeolian™

In this installment of “Similar, Yet Different”, we are going to compare the two current variations of the popular Aeolian® Diffuser – the original 2’x2′ Aeolian and the 1’x1′ MiniAeolian!

Design

This comparison has some similarities to the very first “Similar, Yet Different” post we made comparing the ArtDiffusor® Model C to the ArtDiffusor® Model F. We are looking at a diffuser that uses identical mathematic functions to create the shape… both the Aeolian® and the MiniAeolian™ are an “Organic Quadratic” constructed from a Bicubic Interpolation of a Quadratic Residue Function. They are both truncated so that they are completely asymmetric, even to the edge. The MiniAeolian IS an Aeolian®, only it is scaled differently.

You may recall that the Model F was constructed of 4 scaled down Model C diffusers in a monolithic 2’x2′ tile – This is not the case with the MiniAeolian. The Original Aeolian® Diffuser is a 2’x2′ footprint that is 5″ tall, and will fit in a standard 2’x2′ ceiling grid. The MiniAeolian is a single scaled down unit, and it is a little different – The 1’x1′ footprint stands alone as a single unit, but it is only scaled down in height to 4″.

In this case, form follows function. The MiniAeolian was built to fill a specific function as a smaller wall-mount unit, or a direct-mount ceiling unit for smaller spaces. Part of this wall-mount function was to have a version of the Aeolian® that would fit in tight areas or in spaces that didn’t have enough clearance for the 5″ standard Aeolian® (or would require modification to those areas (or diffusers) to allow this extra height). Some people implement configurations that have tighter footprint requirements, and the 1’x1′ footprint of the Mini allow it to be used in these types of layouts.

Performance

So how does this change affect the performance of the unit? Surprisingly, they are quite similar. The Organic curved design, with only a 20% reduction in height, shows only minor differences in performance of their overall frequencies ranges – with both primary ranges starting at about 1500Hz-1600Hz with and average between 150° and 170° of horizontal and vertical dispersion up to between 5Khz and 7Khz. While the primary range is a good indicator, when we look at the actual polar response, we can get a better picture of their full range performance.

These polars are a single 2’x2′ Aeolian® on the left, and an array of 4 MiniAeolians™ on the right.

A quick glance shows two very similar performing diffusers, except for the low-frequency performance. The larger elements and deeper formfactor of the original Aeolian® are more effective at the 1000Hz range, where the MiniAeolian appears to be mostly specular. There are some surprises however. It appears that at the 2000Hz range leans slightly in the favor of using 4 MiniAeolians in an array verses the single Aeolian®. There is more surface variation over the same footprint (2’x2′ in the array of 4), and the size of the Mini’s features are a bit more optimal for diffusing the 2Khz wavelength. This swings back slightly into the favor of the single Aeolian® at 4Khz, where the larger elements have a wider throw, and the elements of the Mini have steeper wells. At 8Khz, it tips back to the Mini, and then at 16Khz, they are both neck-and-neck.

The amazing similarity is that the variations are quite subtle through their entire effective ranges, and even quite a bit above those ranges. While there are slight differences in the performance of the diffusers when we compare the directly, these are really very minimal except for the low-frequency edge in performance of the larger original Aeolian®.

Closing

With the similarity of performance in the two diffusers, they can almost be used interchangeably – or even used together in the same environment to implement an aesthetic vision or add more randomness/variety to the diffusion in the space.

There are several occasions where you may require one over the other.

  • If you need more 1Khz diffusion, you should add some 2’x2′ Aeolians® – as they perform better in that range.
  • If you need to install diffusers that fit in a ceiling grid… you will also want to use the original.
  • If you want the Aeolian® but need diffusers that will fit in a space that is less than 2’x2’x5″, you may want to go with the MiniAeolian™.

Currently the MiniAeolian™ is a custom order item only, and is subject to minimum order quantities.
Contact Acoustics First® for more information and pricing.

,

Leave a comment

Absorption & Diffusion – The Construction Specifier

For the May 2022 edition of “The Construction Specifier,” Acoustics First was asked to illustrate the use of absorption and diffusion in creating optimal acoustic spaces. The article is a great reference for understanding the types of acoustic absorbers and diffusers, as well as some use scenarios like offices, critical listening spaces, and larger communal spaces.

Note: This version has been edited and the advertisements are removed. The full published version of the May 2022 digital edition can be found on The Construction Specifier’s website here.

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Sonora® LFC – Low-Frequency Control Panel

Bass frequencies are difficult to control… and there is sometimes a tendency to overuse standard, broadband panels to try to absorb everything in order to get rid of that bass. However, this method is unbalanced and has the side-effect of leaving a room sounding muffled and boomy.

Why?

Physics! High frequencies are easier to absorb than low frequencies. So, when you ONLY use broadband absorbers, they easily remove the high frequencies and leave more of the lows. Overusing broadband absorption in a large performance space can be a disaster – leaving an environment lacking energy and feel – many describe this condition as a room sounding “dead.” (Not good!)

So how can you treat the boomy bass without killing your rooms with too much broadband absorption? Can you just take out the bass? Unfortunately, it is impossible to ONLY absorb the bass, but we can LIMIT the amount of high frequency energy that we absorb to balance out the response.

Acoustics First® presents… the Sonora® LFC – Low-Frequency control panel.

Looks like a standard Sonora® panel on the outside, but it’s completely different under that fabric!

The Sonora® LFC looks like a standard Sonora® Wall panel, but looks can be deceiving! At 4-1/8″ thick, it is virtually indistinguishable from a High-Impact Sonora® panel – however the interior structure of the LFC is optimized to attack the bass frequencies and smoothly roll off the high frequencies. Let’s take a closer look at the performance difference between the Sonora® LFC and the standard Sonora® panel.

Standard Sonora® 4″ Panel in red vs. the Sonora® LFC in blue.

When you look at the performance charts, you will notice that the standard 4″ Sonora® panel starts to “roll-off” in the lower frequencies below 125 Hz – it still absorbs them, just to a lesser degree. We designed the Sonora® LFC panel to focus on those frequencies below 125 Hz – while allowing the other treatments to handle the rest! This allows you to use fewer broadband panels, and still have some high-frequency energy for diffusers to spread around – thus creating a more balanced acoustic environment.

The Sonora® LFC is an engineered solution using the same high-performance materials as our other products, but combining them in a way that optimizes them for Low-Frequency Control – hence Sonora® LFC! The magic is in the way those materials are used.

The optimized construction of the Sonora® LFC Panel!

All of the materials used in an acoustic environment have a function – “Diffusers,” “Absorbers,” and “Bass Traps” are all general descriptors of product functions. Some diffusers are also Bass Traps. Some bass traps are also broadband absorbers. Some diffusers use absorption for amplitude grating. By combining a dampened, resonant trap with multi-density fiberglass, the Sonora® LFC focuses on making acoustic spaces more balanced. For controlling the bass without sucking the life out of a room, the LFC Panel is an outstanding tool for refined Low-Frequency Control!

, , , , ,

Leave a comment