Just barely...
Let's say that given the eq to be used to shape the low end and the need for a little bit of spl, well yes i'm not surprised.
The Sd requirements to compare a monopole to a dipole at different frequencies can be done with SL's SPL Max spreadsheet.
At 25 Hz the dipole needs about 4.8 times the Sd to produce a comparable SPL.
Any sonic set backs from this approach outside of having to keep the XO low?
There are implementation difficulties with the lack of volume and how the drivers need to wired. If you are a manufacturer of the drive units like Paradigm you can spec them to work.
Single monster subs can work if placed in a corner and there is only one spot for the response to be equalized at.
Speaking or reproducing realistic drum kit peaks...
I usually chuckle to myself when the old argument about faithfully reproducing the live performance, or what the artist intended is the goal. Most people have no clue of the amount of volume a kit with an experienced player puts out. Nobody wants to listen to that type of peak level and dynamic range. It's not captured on the recording either. I partly blame drums/percussion for the overly crushed and limited modern mixes. It's really bad with modern rock/metal. Any semblance of an organic kit sound is usually sampled out and squashed to oblivion.
Most have no clue that cymbals put out a significant amount of lower and mid frequency sound. Larger crashes and rides can have resonances in the 100-300Hz range.
I usually chuckle to myself when the old argument about faithfully reproducing the live performance, or what the artist intended is the goal. Most people have no clue of the amount of volume a kit with an experienced player puts out. Nobody wants to listen to that type of peak level and dynamic range. It's not captured on the recording either. I partly blame drums/percussion for the overly crushed and limited modern mixes. It's really bad with modern rock/metal. Any semblance of an organic kit sound is usually sampled out and squashed to oblivion.
Most have no clue that cymbals put out a significant amount of lower and mid frequency sound. Larger crashes and rides can have resonances in the 100-300Hz range.
The output experienced by a drummer is clearly much greater than his audience. By how much? Is it a simple inverse square thing? Say an un mic'd drummer is giving it his all. What spl will the drummer experience? How much spl will a seated audience, 40ft away ±20ft experience? I feel like I don't need my stereo to recreate the drummers experience. Maybe it's just me... lol
I overhead mic‘d my buddy playing with a pair of rode NT5 placed roughly 7‘ high probably 6’ fwd and got no distortion (max spl for NT5 is 143db) with him playing an intense solo……I’m guessing the drummer is exposed to 130-140db maybe more? Probably explains why he can‘t hear well!
I’m thinking a system would need peaks of 120db+ (@ lp) to make it sound like he was in the living room (which I have actually heard quite a few times…..they used to practice in their living room!) because like I said the 112db peak (@ lp) of my last setup barely/almost did it.
As far as relevance goes for Camplo? idk…..It sounds like he‘s waffling off the original criteria of high spl ?
I’m thinking a system would need peaks of 120db+ (@ lp) to make it sound like he was in the living room (which I have actually heard quite a few times…..they used to practice in their living room!) because like I said the 112db peak (@ lp) of my last setup barely/almost did it.
As far as relevance goes for Camplo? idk…..It sounds like he‘s waffling off the original criteria of high spl ?
Last edited:
If I'm listening at home I like to average 88 db. This is for me, unbothered and getting lost in music. A few of my friends will come over and want to listen up to 100 db, but not for long. Even with very low distortion, I don't want to listen that long for an extended period. Here's a short clip where I'm probably right about where Mountainman Bob says. The single stroke and flam rimshots are over 130 db. Chrome plated steel Ludwig snare with a two ply Emperor head, no damping tuned medium high. I would never want my ears this close to my snare if I weren't the one giving it the business. Glenn.
Mastering engineer Steve Hoffman infamously wrote on his own website, “Take three or four expensive German mics with a blistering top-end boost, put them real close to the instruments, add some extra distortion from a cheap overloading mic preamp through an Army Surplus radio console, put some crappy plate reverb on it, and record. Then, immediately (and for no good reason), redub the master onto a Magnatone tape deck at +6, compress the crap out of it while adding 5 dB at 5000 cycles to everything. That’s the Van Gelder sound to me.”
Judge for yourselves:
Judge for yourselves:
Another area I think that deserves attention, is Decay.... Im almost certain that room treatment improves the engineers results due to a silencing of the reflections that ultimately destroy the FR resolution... and that decay color is sort of....another level of the last 10%.....
in other words...the real Goal is the, as linear as possible, FR...and the removal of the decay coloration is lesser in priority if at all...it just so happens getting rid of the cause of decay issues tend to lead to flatter FR.....
so that means to me that one would be within sense to trust a corrected, small, listening spot via DSP
The proof would be the pro rooms that don't aim to kill the room but rather diffuse all the reflections...though they aim for a balanced spectral decay...
unique rest times per frequency, do not exactly effect tone to the point of detriment...maybe only in uniquely unoptimal situations
in other words...the real Goal is the, as linear as possible, FR...and the removal of the decay coloration is lesser in priority if at all...it just so happens getting rid of the cause of decay issues tend to lead to flatter FR.....
so that means to me that one would be within sense to trust a corrected, small, listening spot via DSP
The proof would be the pro rooms that don't aim to kill the room but rather diffuse all the reflections...though they aim for a balanced spectral decay...
unique rest times per frequency, do not exactly effect tone to the point of detriment...maybe only in uniquely unoptimal situations
In one sense this is true, but not in others.
For example, there is a perceptual link between time and perceived loudness. A longer signal will be perceived as louder for a fixed amplitude. This is significant at LFs and the reason why in small rooms we tend to want higher levels of bass than flat - there is essentially no bass reverb in a small room as there is in a larger room, hence more level is required for comparable perception.
For example, there is a perceptual link between time and perceived loudness. A longer signal will be perceived as louder for a fixed amplitude. This is significant at LFs and the reason why in small rooms we tend to want higher levels of bass than flat - there is essentially no bass reverb in a small room as there is in a larger room, hence more level is required for comparable perception.
Sure, but it’s important to be aware that you can’t ‘remove the modal response’ no matter how much magnitude adjustment you apply. The excitation level is reduced, but the decay time following the excitation signal being removed remains the same.
It’s very easy to apply auto-adjustment to the magnitude and/or phase response for a single position these days. You get a pretty graph, but you aren’t magically in a different room.
I can’t remember the dimensions of camplo’s room, but the RT doesn’t really apply to truly small spaces anyway since they can’t be considered as diffuse for most of the frequency range of interest.
It’s very easy to apply auto-adjustment to the magnitude and/or phase response for a single position these days. You get a pretty graph, but you aren’t magically in a different room.
I can’t remember the dimensions of camplo’s room, but the RT doesn’t really apply to truly small spaces anyway since they can’t be considered as diffuse for most of the frequency range of interest.
Killing room reflections corrects timbre....is it possible that incorrect timbre is what leads to misjudgment of loudness, and not so much the decay?.....Where's the proof that it is the decay that leads to a misperception of signal loudness? How were those experiments. SPL is an average of signal over time.....I am not certain that our ears function the same way. What are some experiments I could try with my stereo and sound engineering tools to expose this?
If you draw a straight line from one side of the graph to the other....Each intersection with a group delay line, represents its own FR for that period and time...and levels are not what they should be.....at the same time....ever.....unless group delay is much tighter than seen here in this graph.....I am theorizing but have no metric to say the level or perception, just an idea that our perception of loudness could be effected by these minute changes. A more static reception of signal involved may cause a better relationship of volume contrast vs the other parts of teh spectrum....but if everyone isn't showing up to the party at the same time....compare and contrast....will be less effective, theoretically....comments?
If you draw a straight line from one side of the graph to the other....Each intersection with a group delay line, represents its own FR for that period and time...and levels are not what they should be.....at the same time....ever.....unless group delay is much tighter than seen here in this graph.....I am theorizing but have no metric to say the level or perception, just an idea that our perception of loudness could be effected by these minute changes. A more static reception of signal involved may cause a better relationship of volume contrast vs the other parts of teh spectrum....but if everyone isn't showing up to the party at the same time....compare and contrast....will be less effective, theoretically....comments?
How should one weigh this out.... How much increase of loudness perception should we expect with how much increase of decay..... 1ms = 0.25 additional units of loudness?
Without scale the information is somewhat useless. Most of the conversation I remember having stemmed around the ideas that the speaker is swamped by all but the most quietest room?