Quote:I promise that you haven't verified that through your own experience, andreh, because with 100% certainty it doesn't happen. Well, that covers my sodium requirements for the whole week! It may be that the phase shifting/cancelation phenomenon is not what's responsible, but my ears are certainly hearing, and preferring, the sound of my monitors WITH the l/r 1st reflections dampened.Quote:This is a whole big subject, and if you want a really good explanation, please look at my friend Dave Moulton's site: www.moultonlabs.com.I
read some of Dave's article's, including the one in which you interviewed him. He's clearly a smart and studied man, but I disagree with some of his conclusions:- He states that early reflections from undamped side walls increase the depth of the l/r field. While I agree that this may be true, I don't consider that advantageous; it may sound "better," but it's skewing our perception of the actual depth of field occuring in the signal. This is why we avoid "flattering" monitors...we want to hear the truth, not a more impressive version of it.- He states that damping the sidewalls is like putting a low-pass filter on the signal, yielding a dull sound that we "overcompensate for" in the mix (citing David Foster's work as an example). Again, the effect he describes may be happening (though to what extent depends upon the nature of the sidewall treatment and the amount of bass trapping elsewhere in the room), but I don't consider that a bad thing...I want to know how much high-end is in my signal, not how much my room is fooling me into thinking is in there.- His point about a dead front/live rear is one I abide by, but not because it makes sense in my head; it doesn't, for the reasons I give above. However, I simply like the sound of some life coming from the rear of my control room, and it helps my mixes translate better.Quote:The conventional wisdom is that you should stick up an imaginary mirrror and muffle anywhere you would see the speakers. You don't want sound bouncing off the walls, mingling with the "direct" sound from the speakers, and comb-filtering - so the theory goes.But then how is it that we can walk into the most reverberant room imaginable, say a gym, and localize any sound with absolute precision?Because you only get the comb-filtering/phase cancellation when the direct and reflected sounds come from the same angle. That's how our ears work.I would contend that we DON'T localize sound in a very reverberant environment as well as we do in one with fewer reflections. This is because our brains calculate a sound's location by the time difference between when it hits one ear compared to the other (as well as some frequency-related phenomena). Therefore, the fewer the reflections present to confuse our ears about the location of sounds in our mix, the more accurate the depth of field will be.Quote:So if you have a reflective front wall behind the speakers, you have a problem - the reflected sound hits your ears from the same angle. You should muffle the front of the room, in fact that's where you soak up extra reverb in an overly live room. (Remember, we're talking about mixing; tracking is a whole 'nother thing.)I agree. Because this is the rear wall, its liveliness won't affect the stereo image nearly as much as reflections from the side walls will; this may be why I prefer a live rear, as you do.Quote:But the sound from the side walls actually helps the imaging, and muffling the sides only foophs with the frequency response of the off-axis reflections by sticking a low-pass filter in the way. You'd think that the best sound is the "direct" sound from the speaker, so you should soak up everything else. In fact the speaker isn't functioning as the direct sound, it's functioning as the first reflection of the sounds in the recording. You need the room's effect for it to sound right.See my comments above regarding the lowpass filter concept.As for the speaker representing first reflections, I didn't understand this in Dave's article, and it still doesn't make sense to me here. If the speaker represent first refelctions, then what is representing the source?Quote:That's one reason I take exception to your putting me and Ethan on the same level. He doesn't agree with this, at least he didn't during one conversation. It's a fact that he's wrong. But I *really* don't want to have an argument with him, so I'd appreciate your not sending him over here for a fight, because my passing aside has already gone much farther than intended. Ethan is a good guy, and and his bass traps are very good.No sweat, Nick...I'm not trying to start any wars here, nor am I putting anyone at any particular level; I think everyone has something valuable to contribute to this, and to any, conversation if they're thoughtful and considerate in the process.In addition, we should ALL be using our ears to make our own decisions about subjective issues like microphone selection, acoustic treamtent, and the art of mixing (not to mention writing) our music. There are NO experts when it comes to art!It's all good! Respectfully,Andre
The greatest risk in life is risking nothing.