What's new

Studio room treatment

You can make some clever considerations, like many in the thread have suggested, but Tom here also has a valid counter argument..




hmmm.. there at least two other poeple mixing his music to make sure it sounds good on big theatre speakers.
and his room doesnt sound bad or isnt "treated", its just not dead. there are hundred of thousands of dollars worth of difussorss in that room... in the form of modular synths ;)

bob kats had the argument that poeple nowadays mix in nearfeld monitors... which is esentially big headphones.
to me, its the bass buildup thats normally a problem on studios and making sure its enough or not when mixing or producing.
but if you are a meter away of speakers on a quiet room and know how they translate then poeple can make decent mixes. its how to use the tools and ears. takes time.

i think most of all these areguments rely on miscomunications. JXL says sounds bad when its more like "dead" vs "live" . many people trying to sell you acoustical equipment and ideas for studios or backgrounds they havent seen.
kids thinking acoustic treatment means isolation like those big studios. big studios selling the idea that they are the only ones who have the good equipment and rooms and so on. its a big grey area with many variables.

i attended an acoustic masterclass with frank filipeti and he likes the idea of the control room be skewed and not have parallel walls. he also mention the reflections on SSL boards. and he uses $30k a pair speakers.
so def there are different degrees and levels of acoustic and all the different options.

btw - I just discovered "acoustic duct liners" which are not normally found in normal stores but dear lord.. where has it been all my life! for a low cost acoustic treatment thats one of the best imo. a few caveats of course but for the price. cool.
 
Yes, but the fact is that you can argue for several different theories on this, and JXL adds one to the table. In some ordinary walls there are rockwool, which also can have an effect on reflecting sound waves (and bass buildup), so can different types of floor material ect.

So there has to be a high degree of uncertainty about this, relative to the room, what you hear, the music itself, as well as the target of your work (JXL argues that the end user environment plays a significant role as well, as small adjustments in the studio doesnt translate to some end users environments).

So not an end all be all viewpoint, and certainly not the most dominant one (which is probably the measurement perspective), but one perspective amongst several to consider.
 
I really have no idea how JXL manages to mix in his large room without any treatment. He also said that nobody is going to listen to the music in control rooms but cinemas are controlled rooms. Though he certainly knows what he is doing and gets the results in the end!

Amazon product ASIN 1138936073
I think this book is incredibly useful and details the different design types. Philip designed my studio 2 years ago and it is truly wonderful working in here everyday. I love working in a non-environment room. The sound is absolutely detailed and very flat. It all sounds very, very natural.

Anyway, it is a great book to read and page 602 has a picture of my studio :)
 
hmmm.. there at least two other poeple mixing his music to make sure it sounds good on big theatre speakers.
and his room doesnt sound bad or isnt "treated", its just not dead. there are hundred of thousands of dollars worth of difussorss in that room... in the form of modular synths ;)

Usually I argue the opposite - that things like bookcases do act sort of like diffusors - but it's probably worth pointing out that real quadratic diffusors are quite a bit more refined than just stuff that scatters the sound around!


bob kats had the argument that poeple nowadays mix in nearfeld monitors... which is esentially big headphones.

Katz. Actually, I'd argue that they're very different from headphones.
 
I made the soundtrack for a film, did the sound design for it AND mixed it on a pair of Behringer 2030Ps with a room in which I was sitting towards the longest side. I had some shitty acoustic treatment in the vein of foam plates against the walls. The walls themselves were hollow as the shits.

Threw Sonarworks on it. Job done. If I had known this earlier, then I that would've been my first purchase. Ever.

Said movie plays in cinemas at film festivals around the world now. It sounds fantastic and exactly as I intended in my room. No adjustments were needed.

Seeing that movie on a big screen, hearing the sound being translated perfectly...

That told me enough.
 
Usually I argue the opposite - that things like bookcases do act sort of like diffusors - but it's probably worth pointing out that real quadratic diffusors are quite a bit more refined than just stuff that scatters the sound around!




Katz. Actually, I'd argue that they're very different from headphones.


yea... i can get deep into specific product and such. some very cool difussors out there. it depends on how much is needed and the room specifics.

ill have to find that katz headphone info. it was like a 100 page gearslutz thread. its basically that nowadays poeple dont mix with main monitors anymore. and nearfield is well... close by. so you miss dynamics and other things. but that room acoustic are then not as important as with main or something along those lines since those nearfield are very close to the ear. as we all know, bass build up is where the problem is but i would have to find that thread.
 
I made the soundtrack for a film, did the sound design for it AND mixed it on a pair of Behringer 2030Ps with a room in which I was sitting towards the longest side. I had some shitty acoustic treatment in the vein of foam plates against the walls. The walls themselves were hollow as the shits.

Threw Sonarworks on it. Job done. If I had known this earlier, then I that would've been my first purchase. Ever.

Said movie plays in cinemas at film festivals around the world now. It sounds fantastic and exactly as I intended in my room. No adjustments were needed.

Seeing that movie on a big screen, hearing the sound being translated perfectly...

That told me enough.

and daniel james mixes also with behringers in an open semi treated room. i image like him and you , most poeple mix some sort of in between that and a full treated studio. and every situation and person is different argueing different laveles of grey areas in a field not very easy to get a tangible result.
 
I remember so many mixes that are so over compressed, what have so many artifacts when it comes to natural sound, and I bet it has something to do with the room where these mixes were done. ;)
 
and daniel james mixes also with behringers in an open semi treated room. i image like him and you , most poeple mix some sort of in between that and a full treated studio. and every situation and person is different argueing different laveles of grey areas in a field not very easy to get a tangible result.

Indeed, it is a very grey field. I feel that Sonarworks is a solution for people without a lot of money to spend to build a studio perfectly, and a real solution, not some halfway thing. It literally saved me from having to go inside the walls, which was forbidden anyways since it's a rented appartment.

Also, I will defend these Behringers to death. They are great speakers, and I found them secondhand for 60 euros. Money very well spend, I would say.
 
Indeed, it is a very grey field. I feel that Sonarworks is a solution for people without a lot of money to spend to build a studio perfectly, and a real solution, not some halfway thing. It literally saved me from having to go inside the walls, which was forbidden anyways since it's a rented appartment.
solutions like Sonar Works or Dirac simply offer an option which wouldn't be there otherwise. IF you room is small and only limited treatment is possible/feasible, software is a great open on top of everything you (can) do in the physical domain. Without software based correction, I couldn't work from home because the room is not not ideal. And driving to a studio every day is nothing I want to do anymore...
 
Also, I will defend these Behringers to death. They are great speakers, and I found them secondhand for 60 euros. Money very well spend, I would say.

I have a pair of Behringer B2031p (the ones with the larger woofer) in one room ... and they really aren't bad ... so I can relate to your statement.
I actually measured the frequency response of the amp and the speakers. It's not bad at all.

I have no idea if they would work that good in another room, but in this one they actually produce usable sound.
I heard one of my mixes on a big rig at a big hall last weekend and it was OK, so they can't be that far off ;)
 
The thing is that you need years of experience in this area to understand how and why any of it works. You need to work in different types of rooms, day in and day out. Work with engineers, get that experience. I have some but I am not an expert by any means. So, I straight up hired a studio designer.

There is so much good equipment available but the listening spaces are not ideal so I am not sure how people are coming to certain conclusions because if you are working in a weird sounding room, it colours the sound too much.

All of this is happening now because everyone can afford the basic equipment and because of budget cuts, you do the mixes yourself and people will accept it because its faster for them - they cut out an entire process and do not have to pay for it. It does not mean that the said result is any good. If you want to be working at the highest levels of production then you do need to be working in good rooms and with good engineers.

Once you listen to music in good rooms, you will be amazed and never go back. The problem is that all kinds of bad rooms are being built all over the place. And the serious concepts are being diluted and applied into these crammed spaces. Those concepts work differently for a certain type of space that meet minimum criteria.

Every time I see those corner bass traps or any traps which are a few inches deep, I laugh. What a waste of money and time. It's just the internet. These companies just want to sell their products and claim magic but physics does not change.

Save your money if you are not hiring a good studio designer and just think of it as a production space. Few panels, make it nice and inspiring and go write that music.

Because if you are talking traps, this is what you need: The cavity is approximately 5 feet deep.

IMG_5412-001.JPG IMG_6706.JPG
 
For further reading, I found these posts very good from Julius:

https://www.newellacousticengineering.com/what-not-to-do.html (How Not To Build A Recording Studio)

https://www.newellacousticengineering.com/tips-and-advice.html (Useful Tips and Advice)

https://www.newellacousticengineering.com/how-much-will-it-cost.html (How much does a studio cost?) - Does not give you an actual figure obviously but a good read.
 
I made the soundtrack for a film, did the sound design for it AND mixed it on a pair of Behringer 2030Ps with a room in which I was sitting towards the longest side. I had some shitty acoustic treatment in the vein of foam plates against the walls. The walls themselves were hollow as the shits.

Threw Sonarworks on it. Job done. If I had known this earlier, then I that would've been my first purchase. Ever.

Said movie plays in cinemas at film festivals around the world now. It sounds fantastic and exactly as I intended in my room. No adjustments were needed.

Seeing that movie on a big screen, hearing the sound being translated perfectly...

That told me enough.

I did some of my best tracking and mixing in a control room that was, by all standards, pretty awful. But I was the maintenance tech for the studio, so I had spent more than a couple hours there, but the time I started engineering I knew the room well, and I was able to make the necessary "adjustments" so that my tracks would translate well to the rest of the world.

So the room is not going to stop you from doing good work. But a good room will make it a lot easier to do good work. I know this from personal experience as well<G>!

Sonarworks, and the like, annoy me because they make some pretty bold promises that are really not true. It is possible to equalize the reverberent field (especially in a room that is not statistically reverberent) but you can only do so for a VERY SMALL footprint. Move outside that footprint and things will sound worse.

It remains a far better approach to equalize only the direct sound, and treat the room to address physical and time based problems. It really is basic physics.

Still I have no doubt that a talented musician can create a track that sounds great, and translates well in any space, even with the help of Sonarworks<G>.

(for reference look up pictures of the original Motown studios, or any of the others from that era.)

Also, one of my all time favorite engineers has always had a hearing problem. I don't remember the specifics, but the gentleman is hard of hearing. And yet the world loved his work. He engineered many a gold and platinum record!

The trick remains to know how your ears and your space translate to the rest of the world. You can make that easier in a well designed room, but you can also make adjustments.
 
yea... i can get deep into specific product and such. some very cool difussors out there. it depends on how much is needed and the room specifics.

ill have to find that katz headphone info. it was like a 100 page gearslutz thread. its basically that nowadays poeple dont mix with main monitors anymore. and nearfield is well... close by. so you miss dynamics and other things. but that room acoustic are then not as important as with main or something along those lines since those nearfield are very close to the ear. as we all know, bass build up is where the problem is but i would have to find that thread.

Yeah, this kind of discussion often loses something with repeated translations. It's fair to say that Katz is an eccentric guy - in a good way! - but he's nobody's fool.

On a related tangent, I've posted here before that big cabinets usually have less acoustic compression than the small speakers we all use (which have their own advantages). I like having both.
 
Every time I see those corner bass traps or any traps which are a few inches deep, I laugh. What a waste of money and time. It's just the internet. These companies just want to sell their products and claim magic but physics does not change.

Save your money if you are not hiring a good studio designer and just think of it as a production space. Few panels, make it nice and inspiring and go write that music.

Because if you are talking traps, this is what you need: The cavity is approximately 5 feet deep.

That's not necessarily true. Yes, a porous absorber needs to be that deep to be a "bass trap" and companies selling panels with just a porous absorber aren't bass traps but other technologies require much less space. You can get a bass trap tuned to 40Hz at less than 1' deep and it'll probably be more effective than any porous absorber 5' deep.
 
That's not necessarily true. Yes, a porous absorber needs to be that deep to be a "bass trap" and companies selling panels with just a porous absorber aren't bass traps but other technologies require much less space. You can get a bass trap tuned to 40Hz at less than 1' deep and it'll probably be more effective than any porous absorber 5' deep.

Gerhard, it may be true that there are some new technologies but I have yet to be in a room where any of these traps really work, specially at the rear of the room. They do work to an extent but if your room is not properly designed, it fixes one thing but exposes other problems or leaves many other gaping holes.

I do not want to take names but I have been to studios designed by world famous designers where the rear trap was just a few inches with all the latest stuff but every single room has this problem.

What is more, it is where the clients sit and this makes it more problematic. Anyone sitting in the rear absolutely does not hear what you are hearing at the mixing position. Such rooms are a failure to me.

If I am spending a boat load of money on a studio but people just a few feet behind me get a totally different experience, it is such a waste. Specially because we spend so much time getting things approved.

I know people who have got their room sort of semi-designed by someone known on the internet and then having huge problems with getting stuff approved because its just so boomy. Some clients love it, most do not understand what is going on. It can be so bad that literally you and the client may be having different conversations because you simply do not hear the same thing. It is problematic enough that a lot of this is subjective based on aesthetic feelings.

This is one of the reasons why I like Non-Envrionment rooms. I can literally walk across the room and almost nothing changes, except direction of course.

Ways these things can work is you either know your room very well and deliver remotely or it is your personal production space.

What I feel bad hearing is that people spent a lot of money and basically got a result which could have been DIY. A lot of them don't even know its bad. They keep working in that room and most have to because they spent so much of their money.

Sometimes pseudo-designed spaces are even worse than if you put a few panels on the walls. Yes, I have seen this happen as well!
 
Gerhard, it may be true that there are some new technologies but I have yet to be in a room where any of these traps really work, specially at the rear of the room. They do work to an extent but if your room is not properly designed, it fixes one thing but exposes other problems or leaves many other gaping holes.

I do not want to take names but I have been to studios designed by world famous designers where the rear trap was just a few inches with all the latest stuff but every single room has this problem.

What is more, it is where the clients sit and this makes it more problematic. Anyone sitting in the rear absolutely does not hear what you are hearing at the mixing position. Such rooms are a failure to me.

If I am spending a boat load of money on a studio but people just a few feet behind me get a totally different experience, it is such a waste. Specially because we spend so much time getting things approved.

I know people who have got their room sort of semi-designed by someone known on the internet and then having huge problems with getting stuff approved because its just so boomy. Some clients love it, most do not understand what is going on. It can be so bad that literally you and the client may be having different conversations because you simply do not hear the same thing. It is problematic enough that a lot of this is subjective based on aesthetic feelings.

This is one of the reasons why I like Non-Envrionment rooms. I can literally walk across the room and almost nothing changes, except direction of course.

Ways these things can work is you either know your room very well and deliver remotely or it is your personal production space.

What I feel bad hearing is that people spent a lot of money and basically got a result which could have been DIY. A lot of them don't even know its bad. They keep working in that room and most have to because they spent so much of their money.

Sometimes pseudo-designed spaces are even worse than if you put a few panels on the walls. Yes, I have seen this happen as well!
Nothing new. Helmholtz lived 1821 - 1894. There are some new methods often considered to be pseudo-science and I won't comment on that but that's not what I'm talking about. I've been in rooms which seemed to have nothing but thick porous absorbers and I wouldn't want to work in those rooms. IMO neither approach is better than the other and you can have great rooms or terrible rooms with either. I'm just saying that there are much more efficient methods. Whether or not they work best in a particular situation isn't something I'm qualified to answer (and I doubt anyone really is as acousticians generally just pick a handful of technologies and only use those).

I think the problems you mention have more to do with sitting next to a room boundary. That'll happen regardless of what you do. In other words, I think if you employed different techniques but set the rear position in the same place (so that there's a gap between the end of the treatment and the sitting position) then you'd have similar results. Even if you used the same porous absorbers but just thinner and left the listening position in the same place you'd probably have a similar listening experience.

I don't understand how there can be so much misinformation on studio acoustics. I'm still struggling to find good resources and proper explanations to getting world class rooms as opposed to using "bass traps" which don't go lower than 100Hz and then claiming that it's a great approach. It's not like this is anything new. Research has been done on this for over 50 years. Just look at the BBC papers. Those provide better info than what most acoustic panel companies post on their websites. Search for how to build a bass trap on YouTube and probably 1/100 videos will actually be for a real bass trap.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom