Thanks Fons This looks like great space and probably a good goal to aim for.
I think the room will have a roughly rectangle footprint now , with the vertical sides tapering out towards the back. The vertical front wall will be slightly angled from the furthest away centre position to the sides.The ceiling will take advantage of the all ready sloped roof at the front, and then be just off parallel to the floor rising all the way back. The back vertical wall will be completely parallel to a fictional wall at the front, (I.e if the front wall wasn't angled at the centre). Haven't worked out listening position yet, as will need to do some calculations, and tests when built, to see which is best for sound and available space. It's always a compromise, but bass traps will be built! I am wondering whether it would be better to get a few more speakers, and go to fourth order, and if so how many more, and would the improvement be that noticeable for a treated space this size? Also although the rotation would provide 5.1/7.1 compatibility for the smaller satellites, it doesn't include the larger 10 of horizontal full range speakers. These are really important to me as they are a speaker that I am very used to mixing on, and need to be included as it will mean less time getting acquainted to. In fact I think the whole system needs to be built around these as they will be the dominant force in my mixing. Everything will be done in HOA but decoded realtime for A/B' ing. Would it be better to replace the head height horizontal ring of satellites with 8 full range ones or add these in between, with a rotation on the same decoder? I would probably always upscale lower orders to 3rd or forth, would this be a problem, or would it be better to have a dedicated sub set for each order? In which case not sure on the best sub set. This is where it will get really complicated! Cheers, Steve > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:20:20 +0000 > From: Fons Adriaensen <f...@linuxaudio.org> > To: sursound@music.vt.edu > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Construction of purpose built ambisonic > studio. (Aaron Heller) > Message-ID: <20140311002020.ga5...@linuxaudio.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 09:50:43PM +0000, Steve Boardman wrote: > >> Stanford's CCRMA room does look (and undoubtably sound) good, but >> the space below is maybe a bit over board for what I want to achieve, >> in the space I have. The actual area of the build space is probably >> around 180 square foot within a bigger space of 700 square foot on >> two floors. > > As an example of what can be done without digging holes in the ground > have a look a this: <http://www.rossinispace.org/>. > > This is at the conservatory of Pesaro, Italy, and the best sounding > and most accurate higher order Ambisonics studio I know of. Size > should be comparable to your 180 sq.ft. Shape is approximately a > square, but with no parallel walls. The space has a very low RT60 > down to LF (bass traps are planned but not yet operational), the idea > being that in AMB mixes most of the space should be provided by the > signal and not by the room (which makes sense, creating virtual spaces > is one reason to use full surround). The control desk, shown against > the wall in the panaromic picture, can be moved to the center. > > The speaker system consist of > > * a ring of six at elevation -33 degrees (ideally this should > be -45 degrees, but this requires an elevated listening > position), > * a ring of eight at ear height, > * a ring of six at +45 degrees > * a speaker at the zenith. > * one subwoofer > > for a total of 21+1 speakers. This is an excellent setup for > third order, in the sense that the decoder matrix is very > well-conditioned (it doesn't rely on signals that would cancel > acoustically). > > If you have four subs there's no reason for not using them > (put them in the corners, with a dedicated decoder). > > One thing that could be improved is that the current ring of > eight is oriented such that there is no front speaker. The > alternative, rotating it 22.5 degrees, would provide a layout > that is more compatible with formats such as 5.1 or 7.1. > > One point not yet mentioned in the replies so far is that for > lower order (and in particular first) you should use less > speakers. Also for this the rotated ring of eight would > be better - the subset used for first order at the moment > does not have L-R symmetry. > > Ciao, > > -- > FA > > A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. > It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris > and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow) > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140319/987d6c10/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
