In the quest to better understanding what an ideal post production room should be, I have come across this article from Munro Associates (http://munro.co.uk/Articles/roomswithaview.pdf). These guys design/build the large custom Dynaudio Acoustic loudspeakers.

http://cineramax.com/images/Dynaudio5_1.jpg EDITED: THIS ROOM'S DESIGN IS BY ANOTHER 3rd party (NOT MUNRO - the speaker supplier).

Rooms with a View
Andy Munro
Munro Associates
Sound and pictures have always been willing bedfellows but the road to the current, exalted
state of both has been both rocky and fraught with argument.
In the 50s the cinema was the only place the public could hear reproduced sound with any
realistic quality. Magnetic sound recordings transferred to optical film offered the best
quality available with optical heads (RCA galvanometers) capable of 1/3 harmonic distortion
of less than 0.5% at 100% light modulation and a frequency response from DC to 10 KHz (-
3dB), a creditable performance even by today’s standards. The first standard for optical
sound tracks was published in 1947 and the SMPTE 35mm standard was finally approved in
1967. Before that, every film company and manufacturer vied for superiority with many
formats and patents fighting for commercial acceptance.
By this time cinema had serious rivals, for Hi Fi equipment had become a mass consumer
product and television could produce a sense of reality from immediacy and live
entertainment, if not high-resolution transmission. Film fought back with a concerted effort
to raise standards to even higher levels and electronics came to the rescue with signal
processing and power amplification which could turn a visit to the larger theatres into a
spectacular experience. This created the need for specialist companies that could provide the
technical skills to turn great production quality into suitably impressive cinematic
presentation.
Dolby Labs in San Francisco created the modern form of surround sound in the mid 70s. The
trick was to use the optical sound track space on 35mm film to fit an encoded, analogue,
stereo signal which could then be processed to produce a centre front channel, left and right
stereo, plus a discrete sub bass channel and a ‘surround’ channel.
Several benefits were derived from the new format, which apply equally well to current
multi channel modes
¦ The centre channel contained all the dialogue and those on screen effects, which need
maximum spatial stability. This is the equivalent of the original mono optical track and the
Dolby Stereo track is mono compatible to this day. The single sound source ensures that
there is no phasing or combing of the dialogue, off axis of the centre line of the theatre,
which would be detrimental to intelligibility and naturalness of reproduction. The centre
channel is the absolute reference source and all other channels must be phase and amplitude
aligned to it.
¦ The left and right channels reproduce the music and sound effects in such a way as to
create a sense of space and distance, which matches the on screen action as closely as
possible. Some effects are also fed to the centre channel for maximum impact. Occasionally
dialogue will be panned into the stereo ‘picture’, to create the effect of movement or drama.
Munro Associates 4 January, 2003
2 of 9
¦ The surround channel was, and is, used for off screen sound effects and atmosphere, such
as wind and rain, spooky echoes, etc. etc. The bandwidth of the surround channel was
limited to 7 kHz for improved noise and distortion performance but with 5.1 formatting this
is not the case.
¦ The sub channel was used to good effect in movies such as Earthquake but it was always
considered as an option as far as film processing was concerned and the use of a sub
loudspeaker in domestic formats is mostly to allow reduction in size of the main
loudspeakers by filtering all signals below 120 Hz and recombining them in a single
channel. With large cinema systems the sub channel has come into its own and the advent of
Dolby SR and SRD has allowed much more use of dynamic range and high energy at low
frequencies.
With the advent of digital, discrete multi channel recording all of the limitations of Dolby
Stereo and Surround were removed at a stroke and yet there was an important need to
maintain backwards compatibility between the thousands of existing theatres with Dolby
equipment and a new generation with digital playback systems.
This was achieved quite neatly at the projection end of the chain by squeezing the digital
code into the space between the film perforations, leaving the optical track in its original
form. The total flexibility and compatibility of this system means that one print can be used
in any modern theatre. There is the added bonus that the analogue track automatically cuts in
if the digital track drops out. Although DVD will be used for other formats it will be heavily
influenced by the precedent for Dolby Digital (AC3) so I make no apologies for harping on
about the film format most common and accepted by the industry.
That said I do recognise the potential in DVD for more linear audio formats, which do have
potential for much higher fidelity that AC3 but that is another story all together.
Monitoring Format
The essential question at the moment is how do the smaller control room environments used
for DVD and TV mixing compare with the traditional film dubbing theatres, which have
been mixing 5.1 for several years?
To judge this it is important to recognise the relationship between the direct and reverberant
sound in each room.
The person judging the sound balance and quality must hear the correct blend of direct
energy from each loudspeaker and a pre determined amount of room reflection and
reverberant energy. The ratio between the two can be controlled by the following factors
¦ Loudspeaker directivity over the required frequency range
¦ Distance from the loudspeaker to the listening position
¦ Room volume and geometry
¦ Room acoustic and absorption
Munro Associates 4 January, 2003
3 of 9
It is by manipulating these factors that it possible to obtain a balance in a smaller room of
say 50 sq. metres, which is similar to a much larger theatre with a highly directional horn, at
least in the speech frequency band, which is the most important from an intelligibility point
of view.
To take these factors in reverse order, acoustics and room size are largely defined by
reverberation time, which varies directly with volume. The big question is always how can a
small control room with a reverberation time of 0.1s compare with a theatre of RT ten times
longer? It can’t and yet there is a distinct relationship, which if carefully controlled will
yield acceptable results. The key to this is the ratio between the direct sound of the
loudspeaker system and the reflected energy from the room, called logically, the Direct to
Reverberant Ratio.
The distance from the loudspeaker system to the mix position will greatly affect the balance
of direct and reflected energy that the engineer will hear. The point of equal balance
between the two is called the critical distance of which more later.
Loudspeaker directivity is the ratio of direct sound from a loudspeaker to the equivalent
sound output of an omni-directional (point source) loudspeaker. In some ways it is a
necessary consequence of the other variables and is often the most important element in
balancing front and rear loudspeakers in a 5.1 system.
All these factors can be tabulated as in Figure 1, which shows the data for a typical film
dubbing theatre, which I will use later to compare with a smaller room and different types of
loudspeaker.
Munro Associates 4 January, 2003
4 of 9
Fig 1
L W H Lw Q horn Q dome D S V a T60 LpH LpD
20 10 5 0 16 4 2.0 700 1000 0.4 0.50 -5 -10
20 10 5 0 16 4 4.0 700 1000 0.4 0.50 -10 -15
20 10 5 0 16 4 6.0 700 1000 0.4 0.50 -13 -17
20 10 5 0 16 4 8.0 700 1000 0.4 0.50 -15 -18
20 10 5 0 16 4 10.0 700 1000 0.4 0.50 -16 -19
20 10 5 0 16 4 12.0 700 1000 0.4 0.50 -17 -19
20 10 5 0 16 4 14.0 700 1000 0.4 0.50 -18 -19
20 10 5 0 16 4 16.0 700 1000 0.4 0.50 -18 -20
20 10 5 0 16 4 18.0 700 1000 0.4 0.50 -19 -20
20 10 5 0 16 4 20.0 700 1000 0.4 0.50 -19 -20
KEY
L length S room surface area
W width V room volume
H height a average absorption
Lw sound power of source speaker Sa total absorption
Q directivity index T60 reverb decay time
D distance to point of measurement Lp sound pressure at D
EPR electronic power required (amplifier) Dc critical distance Ld=Lr
Horn and Dome Selection
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0
Distance D
Spl Lp
LpH
LpD
The graph shows the sound level produced by a horn-loaded loudspeaker and a direct
radiating loudspeaker in the same theatre at varying distance from the screen. It can be seen
that although the horn produces a much higher sound level over the first 10 metres, when we
measure at a distance of 16 metres the levels are almost the same. This is because we are
well into the reverberant sound field and the direct sound no longer has much influence,
except that it arrives at the ear first and this why we can still perceive some kind of stereo
image, even when the sound is dominated by the room itself. The distance from the
loudspeaker at which the direct and reverberant sound levels are equal is called the critical
Munro Associates 4 January, 2003
5 of 9
distance, Dc, and in a large theatre it is important to design the acoustics and the sound
system so that all of the audience is beyond the critical distance and yet still within the
coverage angle of the loudspeakers. Ignorance of this fact accounts for the large number of
complaints received by cinema operators of the ‘too loud’, ‘couldn’t understand what he was
saying’ variety. Many small theatres and studios have the wrong type of speaker for the
volume of space and the audience size and less directional speakers would give a much more
‘cinematic’ experience.
It is important to realise that acoustically ‘dead’ rooms are extremely bad news when it
comes to even sound coverage as the front seats will be blasted and the people at back
drowning all around them with the crunching of pop corn! That is why concert halls are
designed to squeeze every last drop of energy out of the woodwork; it makes every seat
worth sitting in.The Grand Unified Theory of Sound
There is a general relationship for all these parameters, which has been defined over the
years in the form
Lp=Lw+10log{(Q/4?D2)+4/R)}
This formula is less daunting that it looks; Lp is the sound pressure at the listening distance
D, Lw is the sound power radiated by the loudspeaker (which is room independent).
Q, as already stated, is the directivity of the loudspeaker, 1 being omni directional and 30 a
very narrow mid range horn. R is the room absorption, which can be measured or designed
according to the required reverberation time.
Lets start by looking at a known quantity, a major league film dubbing theatre in downtown
Hollywood or even downtown Shepperton (as Fig. 1) and compare it with a small and
medium sized control room in Soho (Fig. 2).
We can say from prior knowledge and general consent that the reverb time of the larger
room should be around 0.5 seconds at 1000 Hz and the other rooms 0.23 and
Munro Associates 4 January, 2003
6 of 9
Fig 2
KEY
L length S room surface area
W width V room volume
H height a average absorption
Lw sound power of source speakSear total absorption
Q directivity index T60 reverb decay time
D distance to point of measuremLpent sound pressure at D
EPR electronic power required (amDpclifier) critical distance Ld=Lr
Room Speaker L W H Horn Q D S V a T60 Dc D/R ratio
Theatre A 20 10 5 nearfield 4 1.0 700 1000 0.37 0.50 4.54 15.1
Small A 7 5 3 nearfield 4 1.0 142 105 0.4 0.23 2.13 8.8
Theatre A 20 10 5 nearfield 4 3.0 700 1000 0.37 0.50 4.54 5.6
Medium B 10 7 3 dome 4 3.0 242 210 0.3 0.39 2.40 -0.4
Small A 7 5 3 nearfield 4 3.0 142 105 0.4 0.23 2.13 -0.8
Theatre C 20 10 5 90*180 8 15.0 700 1000 0.37 0.50 6.42 -5.4
Theatre D 20 10 5 90*90 16 15.0 700 1000 0.37 0.50 9.08 -2.4
Theatre E 20 10 5 90*40 32 15.0 700 1000 0.37 0.50 12.84 0.7
Theatre F 20 10 5 40*40 64 15.0 700 1000 0.37 0.50 18.16 3.7
Fig. 2 shows the effect of different loudspeakers at different distances, in each type of room,
on the all-important direct to reverberant ratio. It can be seen that in a large theatre a high Q
horn will give a positive D/R at 15m as will a near field monitor at 3m. The same near field
at 1m will give virtually anechoic monitoring!
It is also the case that near field monitors in small rooms need to be as un-directional as
possible if it is desired to emulate a theatrical sound field.
This is particularly true in the reproduction of sound in 5.1 formats. The object of the
exercise is to recreate a realistic sound field based on what we perceive as natural. That
means discrete visually interactive sounds from the front channels and indirect or ambient
sound from the rear, with the occasional directional effect to give interest to the mix.
This is a far cry from some of the audio-only 5.1 mixes I have heard which could cause
severe neck ache, not to mention a low irritation threshold once the novelty of the lead
guitarist hanging on the back wall begins to wear off. I am reminded of the early days of
stereo LPs, when ping-ponging sounds and trains panning across the living room were the
order of the day.
The most pleasing results will occur when the room (monitoring or listening) is not too dead
and the loudspeakers are very open and actually given some space to radiate before early
reflections contrive to destroy the spatial images of the mix.
I have noted that multi channel digital sound has created a demand for mixing theatres which
are if anything more live that the equivalent old analogue rooms.
I can only explain this in terms of naturalness and adherence to audio fidelity, which I think,
bodes very well for the future.
Many people are unsure about the best way to set out loudspeakers for DVD mastering.
Munro Associates 4 January, 2003
7 of 9
I can only give a clear answer in the context of mixing to picture and for this format I
strongly recommend the layout shown by Dolby, in their excellent literature.
As DVD will use the Dolby Digital format for most applications it is logical to set up ones
room and monitoring system as they recommend. Broadcast engineers have also adopted the
ITU-R specification and it is used for critical listening rooms. This internationally
recognised document is full of obscure references to methods of appraising audio but is
recommended for its depth and weight! The new AES document on the same subject tends
to go with the flow rather than challenge any of the existing preconceptions!
The front three loudspeakers should be positioned at an equal distance from the mix position
with an angle of 60 degrees subtended by the left and right. All three should be identical
models with a matched response within +/- 3dB in any 1/3 octave band between 250 Hz and
2 kHz, measured at the mix position. The limits can be slightly relaxed above and below
this range but for mastering purposes this would not be advisable. THX recommend an angle
of 45 degrees for mixing to picture, to reduce the danger of off axis phasing and to keep
panned action from falling off the picture!
The surround loudspeakers should be positioned at the same distance to the mix position as
the main front loudspeakers, at an angle of 110 degrees from the centre line. If this is not
possible then a digital delay should be used to bring the loudspeakers back into coincidence.
Ideally the surround units will be the same as the front ones but if that is not possible they
should be of the same manufacturer using identical driver technology. The polarity and
phase summing of each loudspeaker should be such that any two together will produce an
increase in sound level of between 3 and 6 dB at any frequency up to 10 kHz. Above that
frequency it is difficult to place the microphone so precisely that phase coincidence is
perfect (but many purists will insist on trying).
Several differences to this set up must be considered in the context of film sound
¦ The larger rooms used for film mixing dictate that several pairs of surround loudspeakers
are used, to ensure that everyone in the room hears the same delay and direct to reverb ratio.
The use of time delay and separate power amplifiers is recommended to achieve consistent
results. THX maintain strict criteria for surround loudspeaker placement in order to achieve
world wide compatibility between theatres and dubbing stages;
¦ The surround loudspeakers must often be placed at high level and angled to cover a large
area at constant level.
¦ The surround loudspeakers are rarely the same as the front ones, which are invariably
large, horn, loaded systems of considerable bulk.
¦ The angle subtended by the main left and right loudspeakers should be 45 degrees at the
mixing console. This assumes the loudspeakers are at the extremes of the screen, which begs
the question, ‘how do we adjust for different film aspect ratios?’ One solution is to use 5
loudspeakers at the front, the inner pair used for TV formats and the outer pair for wide
screen ratios. This is also a cue for 7.1 SDDS system compatibility and one step away from
top and bottom IMAX arrangements. The most speakers I ever placed in a front wall were
14, for a rock and roll movie- the earth moved!
Munro Associates 4 January, 2003
8 of 9
This apart it should be possible to maintain compatibility between the two formats so long as
good use is made of low directivity loudspeakers in small, dry rooms.
The LFE Channel
In a true 5.1 system the .1 is a discrete low frequency channel, which is used by the mixing
engineer to create special effects and to extend the normal frequency range of music and
other mixed events. The channel can also be used as a sub woofer system to accept a feed of
bass from the main loudspeaker channels whose loudspeakers may be too small or
unsuitable to reproduce high levels of very low frequency material. This mode is created in
the decoder of the playback system and is a user definable mode, not one which would
normally be considered in the mixing or mastering room, except for comparative use or plain
curiosity.
The mixing encoder channel contains a steep filter at 120 Hz, which prevents higher
frequencies leaking into the LFE track. Dolby recommend an 80 Hz filter in the console
channels to make sure nothing is even heard (and therefore localised by the final audience).
The LFE channel loudspeaker is set at a level 10 dB higher than the other channels in the
mixing theatre so it is important to do the same in any replay situation. This should be done
with band limited pink noise to smooth out localised pressure wave variations.
Most music mixing engineers do not send discrete material to the LFE channel as there is
enough mutual coupling of the main loudspeakers to produce more than enough low
frequency energy; in fact a well matched system will produce up to 10dB more bass than a
single loudspeaker and care must be taken to balance the mix accordingly. The LFE channel
would obviously be useful for extended effects such as cannons and organ pipes and music
reproduced down to 20 Hz or less will no doubt become more interesting as skills and
production values improve. We may even see an improvement in pop music mixes as
engineers (?) finally realise that small, closed box woofers, rolling off at 70 Hz do the
serious audiophile no favours at all.
More Acoustics
Several people have asked me how to ensure that all five loudspeakers sound the same and
the answer is basically down to a few key factors
¦ The room must be symmetrical about the centre loudspeaker axis, with windows and
doors placed so as to steer sound reflections away from the mix position.
¦ Early reflections (within 15ms of the direct sound) should have amplitude of no more
that 10dB below the direct sound, especially in any band between 250 Hz and 2 kHz.
Munro Associates 4 January, 2003
9 of 9
¦ Each loudspeaker should be placed at least 1 metre from any wall and not equidistant to
two walls (or they should be completely flush with the wall for large soffit mounting
systems).
¦ The room acoustic should be as diffused as possible with a reverberation time of
(0.25(V/100)^1/3) +/- .05s. In other words the reference value is 0.25 seconds for a 100m^3
room, increasing with room size. My favourite spaces are often about this value so I would
argue that the ISO/MPEG/SMPTE guys have got it about right.
¦ Room proportions should not be vastly different but never the same and cubic is a
disaster. Room modes will always dominate the low frequency performance, closely
followed by first reflections from floor and ceiling. 7m by 5m by 3m is a good starting point
for mastering rooms
¦ Background noise should be judged according to material and the final medium. Film
and pop music are often mixed in rooms with a noise floor of NR30 because a mix which is
too wide in dynamic range will cause problems on playback (noisy theatres, car radios,
Walkman in the street etc. A critical listening room needs to be very quiet so as to judge the
limits of other systems’ dynamics and NR10 to NR15 might be called for in some
circumstances. A good compromise is NR25 for most mixing rooms but ventilation systems
must be carefully matched in noise spectrum to create a masking effect.
Final Take
DVD is a new an exciting medium with huge potential for extending audio and video quality
beyond anything the average consumer has experienced before. The industry is suffering
greatly at the moment because indecision and format wars are diluting the message for
higher levels of audio performance. The music industry in particular has not grasped DVD
as a medium to be promoted as an art form. Film producers have embraced the new video
technology but where are the new pioneers of sound?

Munro (http://www.munro.co.uk/Articles/DeadOrAlive.pdf)

Studios- Dead or Alive
By Andy Munro
Given the repercussions of the big record companies being run by French sewage contractors
and .com disasters the title could be rather ambiguous but I am talking about acoustics.
The debate about whether control rooms should be swimming in ambient sound or dead as
the proverbial doornail has been kicking around for 30 years at least and if nothing else that
has allowed several versions of the ‘perfect room’ to evolve. These can be categorised as
follows.
1. BBC Radio. The antithesis of Feng Shui
The first serious attempt to standardise acoustic performance in broadcast control rooms
with modular absorbers of specific design and constructed under licence. Placing the
modules in a random pattern and using free standing ‘approved’ monitor speakers, the
results were reasonably consistent at speech frequencies but showed little regard for bass
and strong reflections from doors and windows. Stereo was often less successful than
mono and showed up the need for symmetry and strong direct sound fields and hence
near field monitors. Still a good way to get results when aesthetics are less important
than sound.
2. Seventies Rock and Rock
As pop music evolved and more independent labels and producers emerged a style of
room design grew from Californian Redwood and Hawaiian Lava rock, which was
strong on atmosphere but extremely low on technical justification and acoustical knowhow.
Like the Big Bang, ripples of this room still exist but most were sufficiently high in
creek to paddle ratio to have gone the way of Afghan coats and flairs for men. Rare
examples can still be found in L.A., just look for shag carpet on the ceiling.
3. L.E.D.E
Live End- Dead End was the buzz phrase of the Eighties (in acoustic circles) but always
suffered an image problem because explaining the concept made clients fall asleep
before they could write the cheque. Basically the idea was simple; pile a load of
mattresses at the front of the room and a heap of firewood at the back. This would enable
the engineer to hear the speakers (and hence the studio) followed by a nicely scattered
array of reflected energy, which made everything sound ‘normal’. The problem was that,
done to excess, the energy only really flowed one way and it was a bit like listening
while standing in an open doorway to the garden. People at the back heard things totally
differently to anyone in the ‘dead zone’. Back to the drawing board (yes we had those in
81!)
4. D.E.L.E.
Munro Associates
2 of 3
Yes it’s the opposite of 3, a palindrome of an acronym already! This time the front wall
was built like the Berlin wall and then covered, with the floor, in very expensive maple
or beech. Everything else was smothered in Rockwool and tastefully stretched fabrics to
the point where the reverberation and thus diffusion was almost impossible to measure.
Applying this principle at low frequencies required huge bass traps which caused some
consternation as to loss of real estate and loudspeakers had to work very hard to make up
for the fact that 99% of the sound they produced was used to warm the walls up. Still
you can fool some people most of the time.
5. Enter the Computers
Studio design was something of a black art until the mid eighties when portable (for
weight lifters) computers arrived which enabled people like me to arm them with clever
programs like TEF and MLSSA (not a dyslexic teenage couple) and actually make some
sense of what really happens to sound in rooms. This resulted in waves of AES papers of
the diffusin’ is confusin’ variety and the more enterprising types published articles
stopping little short of proclaiming premature sainthood for various gurus. I have always
had a healthy mistrust of computer models and anything I can’t work out on a piece of
paper although my trusty Windows Explorer tells me I have saved a couple of thousand
measurements so I guess I’m as guilty as sin itself.
Several real facts emerge from all this and have become the rules of engagement for
studio engineers;
¦ Most prefer to mix on near-field monitors so they can hear detail without room
energy arriving too soon. However the absence of room energy is perceived as
unnatural and even uncomfortable. Wide dispersion drivers help maintain an even
‘room-sound’; directional speakers distort the natural room balance.
¦ Near-field speakers still need good dynamics, extended bass and low distortion.
Lowering oneself to the level of the ghetto (blaster) may please someone with a
broken tranny but you don’t win Hi Fi Golden Ear of the Year Awards, not while I’m
on the panel.
¦ Large monitors only sound natural if they employ wide dispersion drivers in at
least a three or even four way configuration. Almost every mastering engineer knows
this but keeps it to themselves so their clients wont buy some. Two way horn loaded
systems sound best at some distance in a dry room because the off axis energy is so
poor in quality. They belong in cinemas, where they cam from. Good dynamic and
bass come from big amps and I mean BIG amps.
¦ The more ‘classical’ the music the longer the more diffused the room needs to be
and therefore longer reverberation times are essential. A T60 of 0.35 seconds instead
of 0.25 would be acceptable to the (multi award winning) engineers who will back
me up on this.
Munro Associates
3 of 3
¦ The ideal acoustic for a room is one you can’t hear but would be instantly missed
if it weren’t there. Too lively and everything sounds like its in the toilet. Too dead
and life will just seem so dull. This implies that good diffusion in every plane and
every direction would be ideal and this would actually produce zero net flow of
energy (intensity), which is an interesting concept. One word of warning, if you have
perfect speakers and ears, in a perfect room, and you swap the wires to one speaker,
you will hear silence. If that ever happens to me I will retire gracefully.

Very impressive. Peter I have no idea where you dig this stuff up but you post some good finds :)

Impressive that these guys don't understand directivity and modern useage of loudspeakers and system modelling!

The idea of having the audience entirely beyond the critical distance is why intelligibility tends to be so poor! Very few of the companies operating in the studio and home audio world have ever seen a full measurement of their speaker's spherical radiation. It is now practical and efficient for a few laboratories to do exactly this sort of measurement which can be had for $700-2000 per speaker. I have heard stories from those labs of some of the biggest names in audio first getting the data and saying "Wow, that's pretty bad?"

The first rule of sound system design is to put sound were the listeners are...

The second rule is to NOT put sound where people aren't.

Third rule... referr back to rule 1. ;)

I'm continually bewildered by what gets published and built.

Sorry for continuing the rant, but I'm honestly frightened that this is postured as good practice. Here's another obvious scarry statement:

Early reflections (within 15ms of the direct sound) should have amplitude of no more
that 10dB below the direct sound, especially in any band between 250 Hz and 2 kHz.

You can get away with this for music, but PLEASE don't use this as a goal if you want to understand dialogue!

I don't know whose room that is, but it has got to sound like c**p, particularily when seated at the board.

Had you guys made your posts first I never would have followed with my post :)
My comment was based on, it looks cool :o

No offense intended to you at all Alan. They wrap up their "magic" in enough words to make it sound plausible, and there are so many different things published it is difficult to sort what is sound and what isn't. I just didn't want people to read this and take it as gospel. In many ways it's very helpful to discuss the faulty reasoning above.

I don't know whose room that is, but it has got to sound like c**p, particularily when seated at the board.

Sure... but according to the article you can expect it to sound equally c**ppy for multiple listeners at the desk and in the room. :rolleyes:

The picture of the L.E.L.E room :) is to show off the speakers.

These guys have a very impressive client roster Mark, and the custom Dynaudioacoustic monitor systems they build are the "creme de la creme" for mixing music and film. They have dual Esotar tweeters and are computer modelled.

They even have a thx version to fit behind a screen.

http://munro.co.uk/Monitors/M3F.htm

I've been in rooms of impressive-type clients. Status doesn't guarantee they'll get taken care of acoustically. If anything, it opens them up for more who are willing to spend their money for them.

Computer modeling means nothing if the goal they are targeting opposes what should be the end goal. I don't give much credit for being precisely wrong. :rolleyes:

Many of the alledged conclusions come from incorrect diagnosis of the source of the problem observed in past designs. Horns aren't too loud up front because they have too much directivity, it's because the directivity of the loudspeaker wasn't properly controlled and the horns were poorly aimed. Systems with less than 6dB variation in level from front to back are designed regularly for auditoriums seating 500-5,000 people. Most are LCR based designs. While it can be pleasing to have late, randomized energy arrive at the listener to add spaciousness, the reflected energy should not be relied upon to balance the average SPL throughout the space. Even more confusing is to hear critical distance discussed in a control room context where you generally never observe a true reverberant field.

you rave about the Dynaudios, any chance of seeing bubble data?

you rave about the Dynaudios, any chance of seeing bubble data?

Probably would make for some very "pretty" colors, shapes and patterns at all angles with dome mids that far appart and woofers spread as shown in those particular monitors...

I need to see if one of their associates wants to jump into the fray.

The one thing these guys do great are studio speakers, how they arrive to the product is inconsequential to me. Their midfield monitors seem designed for a distance of 10 meters. I use BM5a's on my desktop and they sound sweet.

I don't know whose room that is, but it has got to sound like c**p, particularily when seated at the board.

Like all the hard glass and flooring!

my thought was that it looks neat. What console is that? Neve? SSL? I can't tell.

Cineramax; if these guys design large Dynaudio custom speakers; those speakers would only be workable for pro audio mixing. i do agree the room is impressive looking from a 'lot'sa cool stuff' perspective.

there are fundamental differences between the goals of mixing recordings and home listening. Chris Huston; the guy who did the room design for my room, and also a recording engineer and designer of many pro studios, wrote an article a few years ago regarding some of the differences. for those who care here is a link;

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue14/rives.htm

if you have ever compared monitors that are popular with the pro audio guys with better home audio speakers there are dramatic differences. then listen to the amps they use. pretty much crude and rude sounding stuff.

speakers and amps are simply tools of the trade to these guys.

i am generalizing here; there are pro audio guys that have 'fine audio' sensibilites.....but they are rare.

Oh I agree that audiophile speakers with solid state top gear will probably sound better.

The problem is the clients do not want to see the speakers, what is one to do?

On the other hand Dynaudio Acoustics by virtue of the esotar tweeters puts out the best sound in less than ideal conditions. The people from Barco told me to shelf the Torus screen, and use a new upstart perforaretd screen highly praised by the folks at avs.

When a guy I consider many times my superior, psychovisually speaking tells me go perf unity gain, I ain't going to dig in. I adapt, but my consumer dynaudio speakers are going to shine reflections behind the perfs. And the owner of Dynaudio is so loaded with the Volvo and Volswagen deals (200 million dollars a year) that the home project has been totaly relegated to 2 channel, that coupled with forum members like Audio Architect (whose architectural skills are limited to creating perfect triangulated positioning of bookshelf dynaudio on stands). And this chap gets rewarded by Dynaudio consumer consumer group (despite being Old School), well dynaudio consumer is not going to produce any HT cinema system for custom installation. That is such a shame, because an Esotar based multichannel dynaudio is one of the most satisfying , fatigue free long term invetments.

Dynaudio is in dire need of speakers geared for a Cinema space. And it aint going to happen because the owner is rich beyond his imagination at this point.

Here is where Munro comes in. They use their best drivers some in D'appolito configs and biamped. From what I have heard they are extraordinary tour de forces, effectively killing genelec, pmc and some of the other better studio monitors.

I believe these custom Dynaudio speakers have a place behind perf screens and surround speakers on Medium sized (10 meter) multichannel rooms.

On the other hand Dynaudio Acoustics by virtue of the esotar tweeters puts out the best sound in less than ideal conditions. The people from Barco told me to shelf the Torus screen, and use a new upstart perforaretd screen highly praised by the folks at avs.


Peter,

Who at Barco and which screen?

Peter,

Who at Barco and which screen?
Bevan and all his partners including the guy with the fancy LUT, and the CEO flew down to the factory down here (http://www.smxscreen.com/) to make sure they are Iso certified. They are putting them in at Deluxe and Technicolor (with aperture plates, but not reduced by 66% only 45%-mine will be reduced by 67% (to up your ante;) and break some record- of diminishing returns).

The screen is's nearly flat off-axis, way more than the other screens clocked. Bevan also sent me a chromacity spec for the white that was closer to d65 than all the other samples (perfed and non). The mcro weaves backing also enhances black levels psychovisually.

I was told bluntly by them not to **** around with other screens if I wanted post production reference.

Peter, while still not what I would call ideal, have you ever listened to some of the very large, 3-way ATC powered monitors? A tweeter (or even a set of drivers) alone does not define or make a great speaker. :rolleyes:

Of course I have heard ATC at a Nashville show NSCA?. Very clean. But I am the type that found the Evidence 3 by running down the hallways of the congress hotel and was hooked in with a walking stick into listening what sounded like an string quartet in the room. Sold those to Dan M (the biggest pain in the ass in loudspeaker quality discernion). Here at home I even paid full retail for the broadcast monitors nearfield I listen to BM5a. To me Dynaudio is a tool of the trade. I can't f*ck up.

I still don't undrstand why in this room :

http://cineramax.com/images/Architects-rendering-plan.jpg

http://cineramax.com/images/Architects-rendering.jpg

You predict some dire consequences using dynaudioacoustics by Munro.

While I admit not being the brainiac in audio design that you are, the building blocks are safe, and in a LEDE (front dead wall and floor) there is very little addititonal treatment, needed apriory. I will deal with appliques to adress any random RTC-60 issues. But the ceiling rea and side walls have 6 layers of Ralph Lauren Suede Paint ( a mild diffuser / HFA in the 200-2000 range.)

The concern or point to watch out for in a room such as you depict with the speakers pictured in the studio above is the vertical positioning and aim of the speakers with respect to the listening locations for each row. If your primary concern is really a "money seat," there won't be as much of a concern, but for that sort of money, I'd want great sound in as many seats as possible... Now tell me what's the vertical distance between those two Dynaudio mids? Any guess as to the approximate crossover frequency to the tweeter and to the flanking woofers? This is the same reason why Wilsons (and many other hi-fi speakers) are a trade off choice for any multi-row theater.

Model M3F
Cabinet -
Size 1300(H) x 520(W) x 400(D) mm
Drivers 2x Dynaudio 30W100XL Bass (12")
2x Dynaudio 17W75XL Mid (6")
1x Dynaudio D260H High (1")
Connectors 4mm Binding Posts as standard (Options Available)
Crossover -
The system is normally specified with a digital crossover system such that screen equalisation etc. can be easily achieved. The system is normally run 2-way active (250Hz) with a high efficiency passive network between mid and high (4kHz) -
Amplification -
Amplifiers of 500W-750W/ch-4 would normally be specified -
Performance -
Frequency response 35Hz - 20kHz (+/-3dB, Room dependent)
Typical peak SPL 123dB @ 2m, 2 cabinets driven
T.H.D. less than 1% at 90dB
Options -
Various Amplifier Packages. Digital Input Options with Digital Crossover Network. Custom cabinet designs for existing soffits. Custom cabinet finishes -

The M3F dubbing loudspeaker systems has been designed to meet the demand for THX approved high quality monitoring in small to medium film and television dubbing theatres where listening distance typically is 5-6 meters. The tall narrow format of the cabinet ensures that up to five channels can be easily and correctly positioned at the front of any room or behind a relatively narrow screen. Each cabinet contains two 12" bass drivers, two 6" mid range and a special horn loaded tweeter for additional sensitivity. The design incorporates perfect mechanical and electrical time alignment between the tweeter and the midrange units ensuring excellent off-axis response. The system is usually specified with a digital crossover system enabling perfect equalisation and correction. It is normally supplied as a two way active system with an integrated high efficiency passive network between mid and high.

The M3FX is a higher power version of the M3F using 4x 12" bass drivers and Neodymium magnet mid drivers. This version is not yet THX approved.

DOES THIS HELP?

BY THE WAY , IN MY OWN sCREW thx FASHION;I have comissioned the Esotar based unit for more musicality. And since the screen is essentially transparent, there is no need for compression driver (up to 10 meters-of which have 9)

http://cineramax.com/images/Helene-Elevation.jpg Ignore the architects postitioning of the screen height if anything go by this hideous conceptual:

http://cineramax.com/images/Architects-rendering-plan.jpg

Are you planning on inserting people into some type of sci-fi squooshing device before they sit in those chairs? Or is this an anorexic family?

This is the architects conception of the 8,000 swiss chairs he used at Mat Damon's cinema.

Personally these chairs have deliciously baby skin but they cannot handle push and shoving.

Mark I had a chance to hear a Marantz receiver based Snell acoustics surround demo from Dan Miller that left my jaw on the rug.

Do you approve of these (http://www.snellacoustics.com/XA_2500-spec-sheet.pdf)?

http://www.snellacoustics.com/XA_2500-tall_rdax_590x935.jpg

Isn't the screen waaaay too high?
Is Ben Gay provided after the show?

pretty much crude and rude sounding stuff

I prefer to call it "precise" or "accurate" or maybe even "revealing" :-)

Unless, of course, you're talking about PA equipment used at large shows, where you have to go for power efficiency and output to be able to drive it all.

For that room: paste the walls with SoundSelect Black, none of that Ralph Lauren stuff :-)

I prefer to call it "precise" or "accurate" or maybe even "revealing" :-)

or sterile, grainy, forward, and etched. add to that, distortion from the big flat baffles and lack of any kind of soundstage from the speakers being typically wall mounted or set on top of a shelf or mixing counsul. what these pro guys need is simply a reference tool that reveals the content of the 'work parts' and not so much the groove, depth, beauty and nuance of the music.

of course, at the top of the pro audio studio food chain there are acoustical differences between the ideal recording studio, mixing studio, and mastering studio. when Chis Huston originally discussed my room acoustics he said that my room had much in common with an ideal mastering studio......but that a recording or mixing studio would 'ideally' be quite different.

For that room: paste the walls with SoundSelect Black, none of that Ralph Lauren stuff :-)

Ralph Lauren stuff?

which room are you referring to?

I'm using a pair of Samson Resolv80a studio monitors temporarily until my new speakers get here on Friday (for movies and TV - though I did try to sit through some music for a couple of minutes one day).

They have some incredible measurement graphs inscribed on the cabinet. Flattest FR I have ever seen, incredible spectral decay, etc... God they sound awful.

As Mike stated "grainy," "sterile," "etched," and if I might add a more subjective term of my own that perhaps sums up many of these descriptions in one word, "lifeless". How can anything that measures this good, sound so absolutely awful?! It has been a real lesson to me that measurements aren't everything.

Ralph Lauren stuff?

which room are you referring to?

http://rlhome.polo.com/rlhome/products/paint/tech_items.asp?haid=76&f=lp&start=0

If you apply 6 layers of this the walls behave similar to a 1/4 thin padded polybatting with an open weave GOM.

Mark I had a chance to hear a Marantz receiver based Snell acoustics surround demo from Dan Miller that left my jaw on the rug.

Do you approve of these (http://www.snellacoustics.com/XA_2500-spec-sheet.pdf)?

I remember when these were first introduced. I had high hopes for them as I was looking to add more LCRs to the list suitable for larger rooms and with highly capable subwoofer systems, and the configuration, components and size made them look promising. Alas, the specs proved dissappointing to me. They burned a ton of sensitivity in the pointless (IMO) 40Hz low frequency extension which netted the 88dB sensitivity at 2.83V/1m. The speaker is an honest 4 Ohm load, which means the speakers are a power hungry 85dB @ 1W(nominal) @ 1m.

I've only heard them on 2-3 occasions with big receivers, and thought they would be plenty legitimate options for mid size rooms, particularly if they were instead driven with closer to 250W into their 4 Ohm load. That said, I'd probably pick a Triad LCR Gold over these.

I'm not saying that output is the ultimate deciding factor, but it should be a qualifier along with on/off axis behavior for any serious home theater. Even the best sounding loudspeakers (subjectively) will not impress if they are regularly overdriven or the amplifer driving them is regularly clipped.

Are you planning on inserting people into some type of sci-fi squooshing device before they sit in those chairs? Or is this an anorexic family?

http://www.desede.ch/desede/html/GetFurniturePic?type=picture&id=de.eastgate.desede.dbadmin.Furniture!566819718&num=0

http://www.desede.ch/desede/html/GetFurniturePic?type=picture&id=de.eastgate.desede.dbadmin.Furniture!201436897&num=4

That is what a 8k Swiss chair looks like.

http://www.desede.ch/desede/html/GetFurniturePic?type=picture&id=de.eastgate.desede.dbadmin.Furniture!566819718&num=0

http://www.desede.ch/desede/html/GetFurniturePic?type=picture&id=de.eastgate.desede.dbadmin.Furniture!201436897&num=4

That is what a 8k Swiss chair looks like.

Wow, those links didn't work on my computer, it just put ASCII nonsense on my web browser.

They worked for me....

They worked for me....

Perhaps you are not using the same computer and web browser, that is why I specified "on my computer." ;)

I remember when these were first introduced. I had high hopes for them as I was looking to add more LCRs to the list suitable for larger rooms and with highly capable subwoofer systems, and the configuration, components and size made them look promising. Alas, the specs proved dissappointing to me. They burned a ton of sensitivity in the pointless (IMO) 40Hz low frequency extension which netted the 88dB sensitivity at 2.83V/1m. The speaker is an honest 4 Ohm load, which means the speakers are a power hungry 85dB @ 1W(nominal) @ 1m.

I've only heard them on 2-3 occasions with big receivers, and thought they would be plenty legitimate options for mid size rooms, particularly if they were instead driven with closer to 250W into their 4 Ohm load. That said, I'd probably pick a Triad LCR Gold over these.

I'm not saying that output is the ultimate deciding factor, but it should be a qualifier along with on/off axis behavior for any serious home theater. Even the best sounding loudspeakers (subjectively) will not impress if they are regularly overdriven or the amplifer driving them is regularly clipped.


THANKS FOR THE DETAILED EXPLANATION. Still I am considering giving the Snells a chance. Triads and me never hit it off. I used to hate the dryness of snell first tHX speakers. But after spending an excellent training session at the Meridian room, and then accidentaly been told that Dan would like to say hi, I went in to look at the projector but Dang these new Snell's rock. And I am all for D'appolito configs.

Here is the revised idea with the perf screen that Barco point blank told me to use.

http://cineramax.com/images/Helenebob.jpg

http://cineramax.com/images/HeleneSnell.jpg

Here is the revised idea with the perf screen that Barco point blank told me to use.

Why is she wearing sunglasses? Is the screen that bright?

She's blind.

http://cineramax.com/images/Proposed-cinemascope-height.jpg

Proposed cinemascope height.

http://cineramax.com/images/Helene_-rear_elev.jpg

http://cineramax.com/images/chippingthebunker.jpg

Chipping porthole and rackhole out of 1 foot concrete.

She's blind.

Hehehe, now that is brilliant advertising.

"Screens so great, even a blind person can see it" :cool:

Perhaps this one is even better:

"Screens so great, the blind can see."

Those screens are Sofa King great (SNL sketch).... :D

http://rlhome.polo.com/rlhome/products/paint/tech_items.asp?haid=76&f=lp&start=0

If you apply 6 layers of this the walls behave similar to a 1/4 thin padded polybatting with an open weave GOM.


HAHAHA ... did Ralph himself tell you that? :D :D

EDIT: My mistake, I assumed you were comparing against an actual acoustic product (fiberglass etc) - could 1/4" of polybatting actually have *any* acoustic properties worth mentioning? I doubt it!

"could 1/4" of polybatting actually have *any* acoustic properties worth mentioning? "

On higher freq, definitely.

Ok... I read this whole thread and now see why there are sooo many thoughts on room design and such.

First off this room must sound awful. So this awful room is where the rubber meets the road for movie sound. Right? Another sad story to help folks see that the INDUSTRY has a long way to go to catch up with the high end audio home market.

While some here are concerned with getting more than one seat nailed the fact is if you make other seats better you cause the one perfect seat to suffer. So more is never better it is just more. I deal with one perfect seat design as this seat is where the pickiest listener will sit, for movies it is fine to be out of the sweet spot because of the center channel nailing the vocals fairly well.

But for music there is only ONE sweet spot and any other place is less than optimal. I have heard many CLAIM to have the widest sweet spot but in listening with material I was familiar with it was ALWAYS less then the one true sweet spot design. For the room to be used for both movies AND music you need to build for MUSIC FIRST and then incorporate the video side of things. IMO

Looking at the room pictured in the first post it will be hard to know what the finished product will sound like in another better designed room. That console is causing the design compromises and as such the finished product will be compromised as well. Don't get me started on those speakers and their placement. :(

If they could move the console into another room and control it remotely then the room could be designed far better and we would have a better end product to listen to.


As for the other posts in this thread....

Most have their personal preferences. That is just human nature. Some are sucked inand wowed with a demo of material they may not be even familiar with. What is needed is to demo with stuff you are familiar with and better still in your room. Hopefully this space is acoustically tuned and I don't mean electronically either. Play BOTH music and movies 2 channel as well as multi channel. This will tell you exactly what is going on.

One last thing, if your front speakers are all mounted on the wall you will NEVER have good stereo music play back in that room NEVER! So just move on and worry about the light fixtures or the color of the carpet or some other fufu thing. Good two channel is OFF THE TABLE.

Don't believe me? Take any high end 2 channel system listen to a good recording with the speakers against the wall. Now move them out into the room about 24" from the back wall. Try to have the side wall be more than the 24" or secondly less then 24". play the same music again. Now how does it sound? Better no doubt. The same will happen for movie sound. This not opimized just showing it can be made better sounding. Much more is needed to be optimal. This is why good sound design MUST start with 2 channel music nailed for the ONE and ONLY sweet spot. Anything other than this is will be a HUGE compromise and will be cheating the client. IMO.

Unless they insist on invisible. Then you MUST inform them what they will be doing to the sonic presentation. Most will choose the compromises. They are more caught up in the look of the room an far less with the sound of the room. Again human nature.

Just don't post here that these seriously compromised rooms have anything to do with great sonics. They are far too compromised for that to ever happen. They may, however, look very pretty, or cool. ;)

[QUOTE=Allen Fleener]First off this room must sound awful.

>>>>Not Necessarily so . I have heard a Meridian system on a very similar room kick ass.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The owner was asked: Do you ever foresee seating down to listen to two channel? Because for that we are going to need an even row of seats somewhere." NO optimise it for surround sound."

Can we have the speakers positioned forward from the wall so that they can sound more open?" NO I do not want to see any speakers."

But for music there is only ONE sweet spot and any other place is less than optimal. I have heard many CLAIM to have the widest sweet spot but in listening with material I was familiar with it was ALWAYS less then the one true sweet spot design. For the room to be used for both movies AND music you need to build for MUSIC FIRST and then incorporate the video side of things. IMO

>>>I don't disagree and in the past have accomodated such thing, in this job NO.
<<<<<

Looking at the room pictured in the first post it will be hard to know what the finished product will sound like in another better designed room. That console is causing the design compromises and as such the finished product will be compromised as well. Don't get me started on those speakers and their placement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>That shot was purely to present the speakers, the room like cool looking uses the L.E.L.E. principle which I have never heard off and can conceive only exists in some Bang and Olufsen test room.

Most have their personal preferences. That is just human nature. Some are sucked inand wowed with a demo of material they may not be even familiar with. What is needed is to demo with stuff you are familiar with and better still in your room. Hopefully this space is acoustically tuned and I don't mean electronically either. Play BOTH music and movies 2 channel as well as multi channel. This will tell you exactly what is going on.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This room will be the first room in history to use the revolutionary servo zoom lens next generation digital cinema projector, it's optical path is going to be choked by 67%, much like the spigot in a firehose to break some record in on off contrast for a digital cinema. The VAR that is supplying the projector only works in post houses. They are geniouses in their field. They point blank specified a certain perforated screen, for it's gain distribution and color purity , not to mention it's superb contrast. I had to shelf the Torus and the High Power, and the microperf. That being imposed I had to find speakers optimised for AT screens.

The JBL synthesis is out of the questions as I don't like the sound of claws scrapping blackboards. The Triads, I have never found musical, sue me but that is my opinion. The Dynaudio Acoustics from Munro must sound phenomenal, but I don't feel like going through the red tape of importing stuff.

I had always had the highest contempt for Snell acoustics due to the bad impression Kevin Voecks THX design left on me 15 years ago. In fact i have nevr like a speaker designed by Kevin Voecks.

Now Dave Smith frormerly from MCIntosh could design a decent speaker, and now they appoint head honcho Dr, D'appolito head of snell with Dave smith working under him and things begin to get interesting. But this analysis has been made post facto .

During EHX spring I went to a Meridian class primarily thinking that I would be seeing the dvp -6080 frame tripler. While the demo was quite competent and polite sounding. There was a series of demoes going on next door of a heavy metal piece named"La Batalla de los tambores". The walls were breathing on our side of the wall.

As I was about to leave I was told that Dan Miller was in the Marantz room and that he would like to say hi. So I gladly went in to see the Marantz projector demo, and some excellent sounding speakers. I was extremely impressed with the projector and it is the best single chipper out there for now, but what really impreessed me where the speakers that were driven by a Marantz receiver.

The drivers definetely sounded reminisicent of Dynaudio (they were seas), but the overall surround presentation was cohesive, natural and dynamic. Definetly not the raspy dry assault on the senses of the former speakers designed by Darth Voecks.

Now that an acoustically transparent screen has been shoved in the room, I would love the dynaudio acoustics, but a more practical solution appears to be the Snell.

Any speakers mounted behind the screen should be baffle mounted with a couple of inches of insushield around the rest of the baffle. It's a compromise, but I am not loosing too much sleep over it.

"could 1/4" of polybatting actually have *any* acoustic properties worth mentioning? "

On higher freq, definitely.

I have to admit I'm skeptical, unless by higher frequencies you mean from 19kHz to 20 kHz :)

I wonder what the acoustic properties are of 1" of batting, just for comparison ...

Take any high end 2 channel system listen to a good recording with the speakers against the wall. Now move them out into the room about 24" from the back wall.
Actually, for full range speakers, 60" is minimum ... unless you know enough about the polar radiation and acoustics to build a proper baffle.

... unless you know enough about the polar radiation and acoustics to build a proper baffle.

What a crazy idea... :rolleyes:

Ok... I read this whole thread and now see why there are sooo many thoughts on room design and such...........................

While some here are concerned with getting more than one seat nailed the fact is if you make other seats better you cause the one perfect seat to suffer. So more is never better it is just more. I deal with one perfect seat design as this seat is where the pickiest listener will sit, for movies it is fine to be out of the sweet spot because of the center channel nailing the vocals fairly well.

But for music there is only ONE sweet spot and any other place is less than optimal.....................

As for the other posts in this thread....

Most have their personal preferences. That is just human nature. ..................

This is why good sound design MUST start with 2 channel music nailed for the ONE and ONLY sweet spot. Anything other than this is will be a HUGE compromise and will be cheating the client. .............
Personal preference spans the continuum from focus to envelopment. Certainly if one prefers an extreme end, like focus, to the exclusion of all else then there will be only one 3-d vise grip position for the recipient of this "perfection". Alternately, should one pursue envelopment at the expense of focus, then a virtual arena of seating possibilities opens up.

I take great delight in watching the clients that care as they are shown and experience that they too may have a preference. Those are the ones that will truly get what they desire.

The others will get my idea of "perfect" which will almost certainly be different from your perfect.

Of course we are all in trouble if we have to "suffer" at the hands of Dennis or Mark as they ply perfection upon us. :) ;)

Cineramax
I think I was misunderstood. I was ONLY commenting about the room in the first post. The other floor plans were obvious to me to be a THEATER ONLY and as a music room it would be as you mentioned seriously compromised.

Dennis

I was not writing a white paper just giving an example to demonstrate how the speaker placement will effect the listening experience. In fact hardly anyone will have full range speakers these days as they are so out of vogue it seems today. Not with me though. ;)

Your dimension is in fact also wrong except for one room dimension as was mine. The actual placement will be determined by many things. Room dimensions, listener seat placement, room acoustic treatments, speaker design, number of speakers, and room construction techniques to name most but not all.

Jamin

I find focus AND enveloppement go hand in hand and are not mutually exclusive .
If you use a test disk to set your speaker levels you cannot do this for more than one seat as any other seat will have some speakers too loud and others not loud enough. It not only affects focus it also affects the spatial effect which is the sound stage and enveloppement effect. I try to build rooms that are better than what is heard at the movie theater. That place is awful and I know I can do so much better. Why would I try to push that nasty stuff off on a client?

I listen from another seat when I am demoing for a client. It is nice but there is no magic until they leave and I get to sit in the sweet spot again. Movie sound is far more forgiving but multi channel music is very demanding IF you want the full effect.

I am blessed that my wife literally refuses to sit in the center seat. This way I get to enjoy all of my hard work. I guess I am selfish that way. ;) I do, however, enjoy demoing for folks as it always gives me great pleasure to see their faces and listen to their comments about how it looks or sounds. These are near epiphany's for some.