Because the room you're sitting in would still affect the emulated sound coming out of your speakers?

 

This is not true. There are a number of software products that can do what you described. For example, COMSOL, the market leader. But firstly, the license pricing is quite high (about 4000€ for the base software plus 1000-4000€ for each additional module) and secondly, a degree in physics or engineering is certainly an advantage if you want to get significant & reasonable results from the software.

 

Thank you so much!

So, if I don't know math and can't solve a regular equation (not to mention multi-component task, probably needed to create a reliable simulation), my only way is to order engineers service?

 

Let me put it in a way that you can answer this question yourself. The sound distribution in a room and its response is a nonlinear (partly chaotic) system. To simulate a nonlinear system, it is necessary to have at least a rough idea of the possible outcome (for example, the resonance of an object based on its mass and density) in order to be able to intervene in the simulation and change parameters. It is possible that a surface is not excited in reality as it is calculated in the simulation because it has a small curvature that shifts the resonance, for example. Have you ever wondered why some multi-million euro/dollar rooms sound just terrible, or why those different climate predictions are so far apart, sometimes up to an absurd degree? That's why! And this is done by highly specialized people who earn their living with it.

 

Can't thank you enough for sharing your knowledge with me.

I got more questions though, since I'm trying to conceptualize main point of absorbing.

So, let's say we got a room which we want to treat in a way to get: 1) ~ linear frequency response; 2) ~ linear decaying time, where 2) must be relatively low.

If we treat room with broadband porous absrobtion (which for 300mm bass traps doesen't reach more than 0.4 coefficient at frequency of 50hz), we get picture similar to this random image:

We see that reverb time at bass frequencies even with bass traps is much higher than at mid-high frequencies.

One could also add to porous absorbtion some helmholz resonators, tuned to frequencies with highest pressure, and, maybe we should also raise decay time at higher frequencies, to get from left graph to the right graph:


Please correct me if I'm making any mistakes, but then there is still a question: why do we use diffusers? Do we use it to increase RT60? How does diffusion then cause the effect of "big room"? I thought that percieved size of the room impacted mostly by early reflections, which treated with absorbtion, where do diffusers stand in this concept? Sorry for mistakes, both grammatical and theoretical

 

This is a difficult question to answer, especially since I don't know the details. I can give you some general guidelines, but keep in mind that they are only guidelines and have to be adapted specifically to the real-world situation in each individual case. And I'm not an acoustician, so take everything with a grain of salt.

1. Bass absorption is most effectively addressed by volume. Resonators are your friend.
2. RT60 measurements are not or only partially suitable for small to medium sized rooms.
3. Diffusers are used for guidance and scatter of sound. This applies especially to high and mid-range frequencies. They don't make the room sound larger, they steer toward increasing absorption and make the room sound less small and dead. On the other hand, you can get some nasty comb filters if you don't align or place them correctly.
4. Diffusers are usually placed in front of absorbers or in front of hard reflective surfaces such as resonators.
5. Diffusers are usually not placed to early reflection points.

My tip: Try to get as much out of your room as possible with resonators and absorbers before you even think about diffusion.

 

Last edited: Oct 18, 2023

Ideally yes. Also way more practical if you're on a budget or have other issues.

To deal with echoes (reflections that "stick out" from an otherwise "uniform" slope of decay). Also to create some delay between direct sound and early reflections so they don't interfere with it. The side effect of that is that the decay curve ends up "looking" a lot more like one of a larger space, think of it like moving part of the early reflections later in time but in a nice and well distributed manner.

If you want to, as an alternative to that absorption. You treat ER's when they are a problem, with absorption you delete the problem, with diffusers (if done correctly) you turn it into something that's not problematic and even benefitial. Either way helps.

If you need that level of fancyness, yes. But chances are, you don't need that level of fancyness.

 

It is verry simple...
Correct your room with room correction at your likings, and then LEARN how to listen to it.
Takes some time, just like the Headphones.

It's all about learning to, and analyzing the sound that is then there.
There is no "Golden" sound. It has all to do with your ears.

For example... If you go to, to-many nightclubs, your ears will adopt to that.
When you spend alot of time in your studio, visa versa.

The Pro Ear is all about hearing the one from the other.
A real Audioengineer has been in many places, not just virtual.

Most real Audioengineers have been everywhere irl. Not just theoretical.

 

Just wonderful. One of the most useful, skilled and informative threads I have seen in many years.

 

Yes and no. There is no perfect room, that's for sure. And I definitely agree that it's important to use your ears, train them and gain experience. But the thing is: You can only hear what you can hear. If the room tears holes in the frequency spectrum due to comb filtering and short impulses resonate in the room for a long time, if these short impulses are reflected from everywhere, mix and result in a diffuse panorama, then room correction software can't do much. Trained ears and experience are undoubtedly helpful when it comes to interpolation, but let's be honest: in such a listening environment, every decision is pure guesswork. That's fine at live events, where we have to work with what we have available. We do our best, people have a good time for a few hours and then go home. But the studio is our laboratory. As such, it should allow us to make as objective judgments as possible about the material at hand.

 

Last edited: Jan 8, 2024

What about studio desk & reflection ? is there any recomendations ?

 

When I mix, this is what I wear to cut the reflections bouncing off of my body. I call it my "Dead Artist Suite". It works a charm.

 

Looks cute!

 

Of course, it would be perfect not to have a table. This reduces table reflections by 100%

Otherwise there are several options:

• Angled table surface. Usually between 5-10 degrees (depends on the individual case) to direct the reflections away from your ears.
• Adjusting the speaker/desk height or position to move the reflection points on the table and direct the reflections away from your ears.
  
• Absorbent material at the reflection points on the table.
• In some cases EQ can help
  
• Live with it.

You can locate the reflection points with a mirror.

 

Last edited: Jan 8, 2024

no desk = no reflections

on a more serious note, it's computer screen(s) that make way more issues,
speaker placement is really a compromise between shorter distance with weaker sound, or further distance with more, louder reflections

 

Cool thread, this is wild rabbit hole.
I'll go with headphones for a while , this theme needs a lot of investigation.

Would be interesting another "dummy thread" for dummy dumb studio acoustic treatment.