#1647866 - 04/24/04 01:38 AM
Is bigger better????
|
mjmclane
Senior Member
Registered: 02/17/02
Posts: 125
Loc: Tulsa,OK,UNITED STATES
|
Offline
|
|
All right, get your minds out of the gutter!! I've got a home studio in a spare bedroom, 11'x16' which I use for recreational listening as well. I'm looking at upgrading my Event PS6's (6" woofer) to higher quality monitors (8" woofer). However, it seems that even with the PS6's when I turn up just to a moderate level it overwhelms the room and becomes abrasive. The idea of even more speaker area (8" woofers) sounds like it could be going from bad to worse. HOWEVER, I have yet to incorporate any acoustic treatment to the room. But before I spend all the $$ to do so, I'm concerned whether or not I can even tame this room enough to get a good sound at moderate volume levels or is it just too damn small?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1647867 - 04/24/04 01:20 PM
Re: Is bigger better????
|
Bill@Welcome Home Studios
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 08/23/03
Posts: 7343
|
|
Offline
|
|
I've recently seen a splatter of messages across the internet talking about speaker size verses room size, and how some woofer size or another should be used as a determining factor in what speaker cabs to buy for the typical home studio.
This confuses, me, since we are trying to achive a given sound pressure level across the audible spectrum. However it can be done, that is a viable answer. Using a 1 inch driver or a 50 inch driver, we're still going to want to be listening at the same sound pressure level.
This new 'logic' has been used to promote the idea that the Mackie 824 is the 'wrong' speaker to use, because the 8 inch driver is 'too large' for a home studio. (oooohhhhhhkkkkkaaaayyyyy.....)
I think that it is a missreading or bastardization of low frequency PA cabinet design theory, as it applies to large venues... wrong solution for the wrong problem.
Any low end problems that exist in a room will always exist in that room until it is treated. Those problems will exist, even if there are NO speakers in the room. It is a room design problem.
Bill
_________________________
"...it's easier than hitting the kids, and almost as much fun..."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1647868 - 04/24/04 01:54 PM
Re: Is bigger better????
|
Ethan Winer
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 06/12/00
Posts: 5406
Loc: New Milford, CT, USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
MJ,
> The idea of even more speaker area <
Bill nailed it - who cares how big the woofer is? What matters is volume level versus frequency. Volume knobs can also be turned down too! 
> when I turn up just to a moderate level it overwhelms the room and becomes abrasive. <
Acoustic treatment is indeed the correct fix, regardless of speaker size, having a subwoofer or not, etc.
--Ethan
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1647869 - 04/25/04 08:06 PM
Re: Is bigger better????
|
Godspeed,YouBlackEmperor.
Senior Member
Registered: 11/07/01
Posts: 58
Loc: Brooklyn,NY,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Actually, the notion is really more that if you have a 5" inch driver and it gradually falls off below 100Hz, whatever room issues you have will be less exaggerated as 50, 60 and 70 Hz can be very 'nodal' in a small untreated room. Of course the likely uneven response above 100Hz is another matter. Below 100Hz can be checked in another environment like a car where the bass response is more even.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1647870 - 04/26/04 03:53 PM
Re: Is bigger better????
|
Ethan Winer
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 06/12/00
Posts: 5406
Loc: New Milford, CT, USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
GBE,
> whatever room issues you have will be less exaggerated <
I don't see how it would be useful to ignore what's happening at low frequencies. That seems akin to an ostrich putting his head in the sand, no?
--Ethan
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1647871 - 04/26/04 08:15 PM
Re: Is bigger better????
|
Godspeed,YouBlackEmperor.
Senior Member
Registered: 11/07/01
Posts: 58
Loc: Brooklyn,NY,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Not really.
As long as youre not boosting below 100Hz to compensate for what a speaker lacks. I think a speaker that goes down to 40Hz in an untreated room is harder to deal with than one that barely makes it to 80Hz. Im taking issue with all the emphasis on bass trapping which is a bit of an overstatement. I went that route and found speaker and especially sub placement to be much more critical. I spent weeks adjusting that stuff and now have a very linear situation at the mix position.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1647872 - 04/26/04 08:54 PM
Re: Is bigger better????
|
Ethan Winer
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 06/12/00
Posts: 5406
Loc: New Milford, CT, USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
Black,
> I think a speaker that goes down to 40Hz in an untreated room is harder to deal with than one that barely makes it to 80Hz. <
Paul White, editor of Sound on Sound magazine, has made that point a few times, and there's some merit. But, assuming decent speakers that can reproduce bass accurately, a far more appropriate comparison is a treated versus untreated room. That is, a kid with no money can make do with bass-shy speakers in an untreated room, and may even be better off using those speakers. But for pros and other folks who really need to hear what they're doing, there's no question that having bass traps beats not having bass traps every time.
> Im taking issue with all the emphasis on bass trapping which is a bit of an overstatement. <
Since you're only an hour or so away from me, consider this a standing offer to visit in person some time, and bring some of your mixes to play in both of my well-treated rooms.
--Ethan
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Ethan Winer
|
|
|
