Technology vs physics

digitalscream

It's not technology vs physics - it's assets vs maintenance, and most likely the accounts that are driving this.

When you consider the £40k of equipment, that's an asset and they can sell it if they want. It appears as an asset on their accounts, and therefore they haven't lost anything by buying it (in accounting terms).

Acoustic treatment, however, is effectively attached to the building but doesn't increase the building's value (because if they sold the building, the new owner would most likely see it as an extra cost to them when they have to rip it out)...therefore, as far as the accounting department is concerned, they might as well have chucked that £5k in the toilet and pissed on it.

Key point #1: the accounts department doesn't care how good the room sounds.
Key point #2: You are an engineer, and therefore know that the accountant is an idiot.

Axe_meister

Do you have any mobile panels you can get your hands on?
Do a proof of concept and sell the final solution at 4xprice and make a massive profit margin.

olafgarten

Sporky said:

olafgarten said:

Can you fix the sound at the Lecture Theatre in my Uni, there is one room where the sound is always on the brink of feedback even when it's really quiet.

Probably, yes. Which Uni and which lecture theatre?

It's S-2.18 in the Strand Building at King's. They did say they would do something over Christmas and I have a Lecture there tomorrow so will find out. 

Sporky

ICBM said:

I am not a professional at this sort of stuff, but from what I understand of physics and having tried to do sound engineering in a few awkward spaces in the past, I would say that the only *really* effective way to solve the problem is acoustic treatment, not sound technology.

If a space has bad resonances it has bad resonance, and no amount of putting a different sound into it is going to fix that - the only way is to remove the resonance. You can't add "negative reverb", basically.

That's about right. You can solve some resonance with EQ, but you can't solve reverberation.

fretmeister

Hang a load of duvets up with nails.

Then he can hear the differences on the cheap.

fretmeister

Or install the acoustic panels but charge him for flux capacitor based alternative fact DSP.

Sporky

marantz1300 said:

they have spent a vast amount of money and want perfection, which is unobtainable.

They are listening to the Hi Fi instead of the music.

I don't think that's it - they want intelligibility. They'll even be OK with the idea that it's down to the acoustics, they just always want a way around the acoustics.

Paul_C

people are idiots.

ICBM

Sporky said:

I don't think that's it - they want intelligibility. They'll even be OK with the idea that it's down to the acoustics, they just always want a way around the acoustics.

If it's an intelligibility issue then I'm pretty sure the problem is reverberation.

Sporky

ICBM said:

Sporky said:

I don't think that's it - they want intelligibility. They'll even be OK with the idea that it's down to the acoustics, they just always want a way around the acoustics.

If it's an intelligibility issue then I'm pretty sure the problem is reverberation.

Izzackerly.

For which the cure is absorption.

maltingsaudio

The intelligibility problem can be solved by reducing the reflections , can't you show them the model on the computer with and without acoustic treatment to convince them.?

PolarityMan

Sporky said:

ICBM said:

I am not a professional at this sort of stuff, but from what I understand of physics and having tried to do sound engineering in a few awkward spaces in the past, I would say that the only *really* effective way to solve the problem is acoustic treatment, not sound technology.

If a space has bad resonances it has bad resonance, and no amount of putting a different sound into it is going to fix that - the only way is to remove the resonance. You can't add "negative reverb", basically.

That's about right. You can solve some resonance with EQ, but you can't solve reverberation.

Chuck Norris can.

Rocker

The pictures of sound absorption you posted @Sporky are fine for where they are, large auditoriums or meeting halls, but, and there is no other way to say it, they would look fooking awful in a domestic room, one in which people live.  Domestic living areas are not vast cathedrals.

One of the most forgiving speakers, that is least demanding placement wise, is the Wilson Audio Duet.  And they sound simply marvelous. They are expensive which is why you don't see many around but they can literally be plonked down here and there and they will sound superb.  All the other speakers made by Wilson Audio are extremely demanding positioning wise which is why no buyer in their right mind will forego the services of a Wilson Audio trained installer.

But the designers of sound absorption panels etc. for home use have a lot of thinking to do to make them domestically acceptable.  Even if they work there is no way they would be allowed in homes.

fretmeister

I quite like the Baux panels Sporky has shown.

Quite fun.

Teetonetal

digitalscream said:

It's not technology vs physics - it's assets vs maintenance, and most likely the accounts that are driving this.

When you consider the £40k of equipment, that's an asset and they can sell it if they want. It appears as an asset on their accounts, and therefore they haven't lost anything by buying it (in accounting terms).

Acoustic treatment, however, is effectively attached to the building but doesn't increase the building's value (because if they sold the building, the new owner would most likely see it as an extra cost to them when they have to rip it out)...therefore, as far as the accounting department is concerned, they might as well have chucked that £5k in the toilet and pissed on it.

Key point #1: the accounts department doesn't care how good the room sounds.
Key point #2: You are an engineer, and therefore know that the accountant is an idiot.

Oh please don't get me started on corporate accountants.... people with the ability to only understand something that is a black and white issue or make the most simple of process terrifyingly complex....

The world is more or less run by these people, which i's why life can be so mind bogglingly annoying at times.

Foster

Rocker said:

The pictures of sound absorption you posted @Sporky are fine for where they are, large auditoriums or meeting halls, but, and there is no other way to say it, they would look fooking awful in a domestic room, one in which people live.  Domestic living areas are not vast cathedrals.

One of the most forgiving speakers, that is least demanding placement wise, is the Wilson Audio Duet.  And they sound simply marvelous. They are expensive which is why you don't see many around but they can literally be plonked down here and there and they will sound superb.  All the other speakers made by Wilson Audio are extremely demanding positioning wise which is why no buyer in their right mind will forego the services of a Wilson Audio trained installer.

But the designers of sound absorption panels etc. for home use have a lot of thinking to do to make them domestically acceptable.  Even if they work there is no way they would be allowed in homes.

You're also less likely to need such acoustic treatment in a typical home.

I've heard great recordings in small home studios (better than when the same song was re-recorded in a proper studio) simply because the small home room was filled with crap. Curtains, a sofa, a bookcase full of books are excellent as acoustic treatment. If you need something 'more' then look into panels on the wall, covered with a light fabric that's got a picture on it. 

I've met people who brag about the amount of money they spend on their home studio, dab radio or bloody bose player thing yet don't ever think about cleaning their ears. Especially when they're half deaf and struggle to hear people talking next to them!

thermionic

I think I know what the problem is here.

They need to power their audio system through a Russ Andrews mains cable.

Winny_Pooh

maltingsaudio said:

The intelligibility problem can be solved by reducing the reflections , can't you show them the model on the computer with and without acoustic treatment to convince them.?

Wis'd and quoted. I think they will believe the screen more than your experience, sorry. I would personally send them some graphs from "room models" which could even be fake. 

ToneControl

how can  anyone  expect to properly solve room acoustic problems with DSP treatments?
Firstly, the sheer number of repeated reflections  will make  creating a model of the  acoustics  complex
secondly, whatever correction you apply at the speakers will vary in its effect depending on where you are listening, how can you cancel out all unwanted room reflections at all listening points?

Sporky

Rocker said:

The pictures of sound absorption you posted @Sporky are fine for where they are, large auditoriums or meeting halls, but, and there is no other way to say it, they would look fooking awful in a domestic room, one in which people live.  Domestic living areas are not vast cathedrals.

@Rocker I've already said several times that I don't do residential work. This is for (again) Universities, conference centres, corporate meeting rooms and auditoriums, the odd hotel...

Rocker said:

But the designers of sound absorption panels etc. for home use have a lot of thinking to do to make them domestically acceptable.  Even if they work there is no way they would be allowed in homes.

Well, they do work, and they are installed in lots of homes.

Winny_Pooh said:

maltingsaudio said:

The intelligibility problem can be solved by reducing the reflections , can't you show them the model on the computer with and without acoustic treatment to convince them.?

Wis'd and quoted. I think they will believe the screen more than your experience, sorry. I would personally send them some graphs from "room models" which could even be fake. 

I could if we had the software and time to run rooms through the models. I run calculators for speaker dispersion but full on EASE or similar is just too expensive for the use we'd get from it, and I do not mislead customers - that's very important to me.

We've brought in acoustic consultants from time to time, and I can assure you that the customers don't believe them either - or, rather, they're not willing to have acoustic work done. There's one on at the mo where the consultant has suggested (correctly in my view) some cladding that would be all but invisible from anywhere people would be standing for most of the treatment, along with some standalone panels to cut flutter echoes in one area. The customer is buying the panels (which are the last 4-5% of the dampening) but won't put in the invisible treatment...