# LIVE strings through overdub. Crafty budget production



## David A (Mar 3, 2008)

Hello to you all! I intend to purchase a very expensive MOTU 8 Pre soundcard (the quality of its preamps are what attract me) for the sole purpose of recording live strings with a large diaphragm condenser mic (eg AKG C414) but my room is not acoustically treated (no auralex). As of yet I have no preamps.

I intend to overdub violin players at different room positions with the microphone to emulate the sound of a live string section, which I could then mix back into samples. (my room is not acoustically treated) Anyone else use this 'sweetening' technique/thinking of doing it? Do you think my idea is a good one?

Its pretty much a hardware Vs. more awesome libraries conflict here. I have money for only one-the sound card, or the sample libraries (two libraries at least-RA/SD2 and Choirs)

I may also record the odd flute/perhaps a sax, definately guitars through DI (guitar rig and a good pod beat an amp anyday. 

Cheers,
Dave.


----------



## Tod (Mar 3, 2008)

Hi David,

Whether or how your room is treaò6}   reÛ6}   reÜ6}   reÝ6}   reÞ6}   reß6}   reà6~   reá6~   reâ6~   reã6~   reä6~   reå6~   reæ6~   reç6~   reè6~   reé6~   reê6~   reë6~   reì6~   reí6~   reî6~   reï6~   reð6~   reñ6~   reò6~   reó6~   reô6~   reõ6~   reö6~   re÷6~   reø6~   reù6~   reú6~   reû6~   reü6~   reý6~   reþ6~   reÿ6~   rf 6~   rf6~   rf6~   rf6~   rf6~   rf6~   rf6~   rf6~   rf6~   rf	6~   rf
6~   rf6~   rf6~   rf 6~   rf6~   rf6~   rf6~   rf6~   rf6~   rf6~   rf6~   rf6~   rf6~   rf6~   rf6~   rf6~   rf6~   rf6~   rf6~   rf6~   rf6~   rf6~   rf 6~   rf!6~   rf"6~   rf#6~   rf$6~   rf%6~   rf&6~   rf'6~   rf(6~   rf)6~   rf*6~   rf+6~   rf,6~   rf-6~   rf.6~   rf/6~   rf06~   rf16~   rf26~   rf36~   rf46~   rf56~   rf66~   rf76~


----------



## Tod (Mar 3, 2008)

I'm sorry David, I thought you were talking about doing this in a smaller type room. :oops: 

By all means, if you have access to some good acoustic halls/rooms. , then the better your soundcard, preamps, and mics the better results you will get.  

Getting it all recorded into your computer is the most important thing. After that you shouldn't have to worry about the preamps but haveing some good software to work with for mixing and editing would be very nice. Of course haveing a good listening environment doesn't hurt either.  

Sorry, I don't know anything about the preamps your talking about. :? 

Tod


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 4, 2008)

David A @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> I intend to overdub violin players at different room positions with the microphone to emulate the sound of a live string section, which I could then mix back into samples. (my room is not acoustically treated) Anyone else use this 'sweetening' technique/thinking of doing it? Do you think my idea is a good one?



Hi,

I have run this sort of test myself and the results are very promising. Had good success in another forum with a sample.

BUT

I stopped at the point where I realized that the room plays a key role in this. Have been reading all that I could get about acoustics for more than five weeks now and went into construction last week. If everything turns out like planned then at the end I will have an A+ grade room. 

There is no good way of sweetening bad room acoustics out of a record. The reason is that there are comb filtering and uneven reverb times and modes all over the place.

Compared to the room the other indegrients like mic, preamps etc. are of second relevance. Just to name a number the frequency response of different mics is in the range of 1 - 3 dB (I _know _frequency response is not all but still ...). An untreated room gives nulls and peaks in the 30 dB range. YIKES!!! >8o 

When I am finished my room will hopefully be in the +/- 3 dB range down to 30 Hz, even better between 70 and 16000 Hz. This is _not _something you can achieve by hanging a few panels at the walls. You can spend thousands on conventional absorber panels and so-called-corner-bass-traps and will still be not better than -/- 6 dB, even worse in many cases.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 4, 2008)

David,

I just saw that you can record in a concert hall. That is fine, if they have a great acoustics that means that they are constructed for it.

I would say go for it and make your experiences. Recording is adventurous but can be very awarding. On the other side it strongly depends on the quality of your musicians of course.


----------



## David A (Mar 4, 2008)

I dont have a laptop though....that seemingly would have to be another part of the equation in order for me to record on location-Im not going to heave my huge desktop PC around with me, and this is what has made me consider getting a powerful laptop for recording purposes only. Of course I would also need some FW HDs also. Obtaining a full string section would be difficult in MOST cases...I aim to mix in chamber ensembles doubling lines and overdubbing to make up string parts.

This mostly a strings issue. I believe mixing back with samples could work particularly well. I AM going to need a laptop aren't I?


----------



## Daryl (Mar 4, 2008)

The most important thing to remember is that the largest acoustic that any of your elements are recorded in is going to decide what the eventual sound is going to be. If you record in a relatively dry studio, there is no problem mixing with either ambient samples or dry ones. If you record in a concert hall, your samples will either need to match the sound or be dry.

D


----------



## JB78 (Mar 4, 2008)

David A @ Mon Mar 03 said:


> definately guitars through DI (guitar rig and a good pod beat an amp anyday.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave.



>8o No they don't Dave, you might be satisfied and get a pretty good result (I haven't tried it myself) or it might sound awful at least to someone who's a guitarplayer. If you want to sample guitars and you know what sound(s) you're going for, it's better to let the guitarplayer bring in his best amps and do it that way. You could still record DI as well, but I think you will get much better results with amps.

Best regards
Jon


----------



## Scott Cairns (Mar 4, 2008)

David, I think you'll need good A/D converters to record strings well. In fact, you could use any old sound card with a digital input and hook the converter into that.

Id also recommend recording a minimum of three players for tuning. Two can still play slightly out (even with each other) but three is enough to fudge it and "smooth things over".


----------



## David A (Mar 4, 2008)

Scott Cairns @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> David, I think you'll need good A/D converters to record strings well. In fact, you could use any old sound card with a digital input and hook the converter into that.
> 
> Id also recommend recording a minimum of three players for tuning. Two can still play slightly out (even with each other) but three is enough to fudge it and "smooth things over".



I read somewhere that routing a superior preamp unit through an inferior sound card (that would be putting an RME Quad through my inferior UA3FX in my case) degrades the quality of the initial sound from the preamp unit. Thats why I was going for the MOTU 8 Pre-it has good preamps (supposedly) AND its a soundcard so there is no loss of quality.

Dave


----------



## Frederick Russ (Mar 4, 2008)

Alan Silvestri has a large personal collection of Millennia preamps which are an industry standard for critical recording. You want something that is transparent and reproduces exactly what is going on in the room. See http://www.mil-media.com/clients.html


----------



## Scott Cairns (Mar 4, 2008)

David A @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> I read somewhere that routing a superior preamp unit through an inferior sound card (that would be putting an RME Quad through my inferior UA3FX in my case) degrades the quality of the initial sound from the preamp unit.


 THat may be true. What Im suggesting is that all you feed the sound card is digital 0s and 1s - the mic pre would go into the A/D converter. Then travel digitally to the sound card and into the computer. THat shouldnt interfere with the sound at all.



David A @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> Thats why I was going for the MOTU 8 Pre-it has good preamps (supposedly) AND its a soundcard so there is no loss of quality.


 Dont forget, you're still relying on the quality of the converters in the card or pre-amp itself. 

Ideally, you want high quality mic pres, going into a high quality converter. Then the signal just needs to route into your computer; either by s/pdif, usb whatever.


----------



## David A (Mar 4, 2008)

Scott Cairns @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> David A @ Tue Mar 04 said:
> 
> 
> > I read somewhere that routing a superior preamp unit through an inferior sound card (that would be putting an RME Quad through my inferior UA3FX in my case) degrades the quality of the initial sound from the preamp unit.


 THat may be true. What Im suggesting is that all you feed the sound card is digital 0s and 1s - the mic pre would go into the A/D converter. Then travel digitally to the sound card and into the computer. THat shouldnt interfere with the sound at all.

I dont understand-isnt this going to degrade the quality ANYWAY? What you are suggesting sounds like a hardware realignment which going through my inferior soundcard (it works FINE by the way, but its just not top of the range) would be using that inferior soundcards A/D converters. Ultimately Id still be using Edirol UA3FX A/D converters which means degredation-right?


----------



## David A (Mar 4, 2008)

Frederick Russ @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> Alan Silvestri has a large personal collection of Millennia preamps which are an industry standard for critical recording. You want something that is transparent and reproduces exactly what is going on in the room. See http://www.mil-media.com/clients.html



I strongly doubt Id be able to afford the preamps Alan Silvestri is using! Unless theyre some underground brilliant product priced at a really cheap price that nobody knows about.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Mar 4, 2008)

David A @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> Scott Cairns @ Tue Mar 04 said:
> 
> 
> > David, I think you'll need good A/D converters to record strings well. In fact, you could use any old sound card with a digital input and hook the converter into that.
> ...



There are some very nice, and reasonable lightpipe preamps. Presounus makes a very good 8-pack, I forget what it's called. I recorded with one a few months ago, and it surprised me how good it sounded.

If I were buying new audio interfaces today, I would buy mulitchannel lightpipe, and mix and match the output and input modules per task.

Regarding the laptop, I don't know that you absolutely need one. If you're recording in a hall, you don't want the computer in the room, anyway. Most commercial halls have a booth. When I record at the Meyerson here in Dallas, I literally just take a balanced TRS snake, and bang right into their preamp outputs, run the mics, onstage, and it's a done deal.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Mar 4, 2008)

Hi Bruce - was it this one:

http://www.presonus.com/products/Detail ... oductId=13

I own the two-channel ADL600 which I really like. I've considered an eight pack Presonus before because of the quality and price.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 4, 2008)

Frederick Russ @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> Hi Bruce - was it this one:
> 
> http://www.presonus.com/products/Detail ... oductId=13
> 
> I've considered an eight pack Presonus before because of the quality and price.


I have the slightly older model (much better design for my studio) and am very happy with it so far.

D


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Mar 4, 2008)

David A @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> Scott Cairns @ Tue Mar 04 said:
> 
> 
> > THat may be true. What Im suggesting is that all you feed the sound card is digital 0s and 1s - the mic pre would go into the A/D converter. Then travel digitally to the sound card and into the computer. THat shouldnt interfere with the sound at all.
> ...



No, if you're using digital inputs it's just 1 and 0's. There's no grey area there, unless your audio interface is horribly malfunctioning. The only way you're going through the converters is if you're using an analog input or output. However, I'm not familiar with that Edirol unit, and I can't tell what kind of Digital i/o it has, only that it has some kind. If it's only stereo (s/pdif), then yes, you'd probably want to update your interface in general just to have a more flexible set of options.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Mar 4, 2008)

Frederick Russ @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> Hi Bruce - was it this one:
> 
> http://www.presonus.com/products/Detail ... oductId=13
> 
> I own the two-channel ADL600 which I really like. I've considered an eight pack Presonus before because of the quality and price.



Very similar, a Digimax LT. It worked great.


----------



## poseur (Mar 4, 2008)

in regards to the problem of "matching" the ambiences/acoustics
of the real players' real room to that of the sampled players,
may i kindly suggest:
use relatively dry samples.
bring both them (in your master record file, somehow)
AND a quality playback system to the "good" room
in which you'll have the 
real players playing.

after the real players depart,
record playback of only your samples (in at least one stereo pair) to
your master-recording.
this may make it somewhat easier for you to marry the 2 very different
media together, at your final mix.....
..... after checking for phase inconsistencies, naturally.

d


----------



## Daryl (Mar 5, 2008)

poseur @ Wed Mar 05 said:


> in regards to the problem of "matching" the ambiences/acoustics
> of the real players' real room to that of the sampled players,
> may i kindly suggest:
> use relatively dry samples.
> ...


This can be good advice. However, when the real string section is very small, the room sound is not of much use to you. In this situation it is better to record in a dryish room (preferably using dryish samples as well) and then treat both sets of recordings to suitable reverb/EQ to match as closely as possible. Remember that when you record a small string section on top of a big sampled section, the louder the real strings are, the smaller the ensemble will feel. It is a trade-off.

D


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Mar 5, 2008)

That all depends on how you mic it.

If you're using a small set of players to sweeten sampled sections, say VSL or EW, in either case I would use a fairly large studio, and I would use spot mics and room mics for the session.

That way, you're not making your sampled sections sound "distant and buzzy" compared to your overdubs.

In a hybrid situation, I would probably try to use Sonic Implants strings. You could add three players to each of those sections and be able to run them 20-30% hotter, due to the smaller number of players. Same theory would hold with the smaller chamber sections in the various collections. The proportion of the number of players you're recording, compared to the number of players recorded in a given sampled section is your proper balance ratio, give or take just a few percentage points.

Or in other words, if your three "live" string players are the same volume in the mix as six sampled players, the live players will sound "real," and the six sampled players will sound "distant and synthy" in comparison.

Mic distance is everything, though. And that is tempered by the size of the room. You need a big enough room that the space won't saturate. The moment your recording space saturates, you're dead in the water, because you'll hear the "box" louder than you hear the source--and then you're in the situation of two different "boxes," one for the samples, the other for your live sources.


----------



## David A (Mar 5, 2008)

Thank you for the info Bruce. I dont think I shall be so keen to get that product now!


----------



## Rob Elliott (Mar 5, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Wed Mar 05 said:


> That all depends on how you mic it.
> 
> If you're using a small set of players to sweeten sampled sections, say VSL or EW, in either case I would use a fairly large studio, and I would use spot mics and room mics for the session.
> 
> ...




Bruce, really appreciate your comments - a quick question. I am expanding this project studio right now to do just want is being discussed in this thread (to sweeten string samples, special woodwinds, etc.). I use primarily all of VSL's strings (solo, chamber, Std, AP 1 and 2).

My new room's i.d. max dimensions are 9' H x 14' L x 12' W (confirmed with an acoustical guy that the nodes issues will be Ok given these dimensions.

Of course I would have love to make it bigger but this is all the room I could muster. The question is how many violin players would you record at one go in a room this size (hoping to get 10 if possible)?

The contractor is building 45 degree angles in the corners (filled with R-19 insulation - gyp board is all 5/8"). I am sure that I will still have to treat slap back echoes on facing walls.


Thanks for your input.


(I have heard colleagues' recording 'dry' only 6 violins and adding to their 'dry' samples and could not believe how much 'life' it breathed into the samples. Of course special attention was paid mixing all together within Altiverb.)


----------



## Tod (Mar 5, 2008)

> The contractor is building 45 degree angles in the corners (filled with R-19 insulation - gyp board is all 5/8"). I am sure that I will still have to treat slap back echoes on facing walls.



You might want to consider useing the semi-rigid insulation 701 or 703 (Not sure of the exact number) rather than the R-19 for the corners, it should give you a lot better base absorption. 

You might also want to think about both absorption and diffusion panels for treatment to try cut down some of that boxy sound Bruce was talking about.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 5, 2008)

Forums on studio acoustics:

http://www.studiotips.com
http://www.johnlsayers.com
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/studio-c ... acoustics/

Absorption coefficients of fibre glas material etc:

http://www.bobgolds.com/AbsorptionCoefficients.htm

IMHO it is well worth to read _all _of the FAQ in the studiotips and johnlsayers forum and also some of the Bob Golds links down on his absorption page before considering _any _construction or even hanging an acoustic panel on the wall. Quite some things about acoustics are counter-intuitive, and somebody that does not know what he is doing will probably sink a lot of money for mediocre result.

Books:
Rod Gervais: Home Recording Studio, Build It Like the Pros
Jeff Cooper: Building a recording studio

Cheers


----------



## Rob Elliott (Mar 5, 2008)

Great - thanks Hannes and Tod.


Very nice links. I have also used rigid board insulation for bass traps in the past - I think you are right about the 'density' (3lbs /sf especially) had some good results.

I agree with you Hannes I have also been in rooms where all the 'life' was sucked out of it and I have hated it


Thanks again.


(I just had this existing room tested and it was fairly flat across 32 bands. The tester said the room's 'resonant frequency' was actuall quite good. Essentially his test had the sound source stop and you can view what frequencies drop and at what rate of dropping (the ones that hang on could be problems - think guitar body). But fortunately they all dropped fairly quickly (according to this chap) and evenly.

I really want this same sound in the new 'orch mini booth' :wink: 

Rob


----------



## Rob Elliott (Mar 5, 2008)

Hannes,

That first link has a room calulator that is quite impressive


- MODESv2p.xls is a spreadsheet from Jeff D. Szymanski that calculates normal room modes for rectangular spaces. Detailed instructions are included on the first sheet. A Bonello distribution curve is included with information on how to interpret the results.



Running my dimensions I look to have an excellent start (red to blue ratios)


Thanks again for your links.

Rob


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Mar 5, 2008)

Hi Rob,

I would try to trap and kill that room as much as you possibly could, first. Then, I would add back reflective content with diffusors.

The rationale would be increasing the apparent size by full-band absorption (the walls, fully absorptive, would have the physical effect of pushing outwards, because the absorption slows down the eventual reflection, coming and going.

Then, you get back another layer of apparent size by limiting your room reflections to diffusors. Diffusors also mimick size, because they scatter a bounce in multiple directions, reducing the amplitude from any given angle.

It's somewhat counterintuitive, but the size room you're talking about is really about the size of an average piano or drum booth. It doesn't have enough cubic feet of air inside to avoid saturating. So, you have to absorb everything possible given your space constraint, and then "give back" the bounce by way of panels/diffusion.

Otherwise, you'll hear the room every time the sound pressure level hits saturation.

Whenever you hear a recorded sound that can be described as "boxy," that's exactly the phenomenon that's occurring. Once you "hear the box" on the track, you are forced to reckon with it, usually by making the other tracks conform. It limits the potential spaciousness of the mix.

The role of absorption in a studio, beyond correcting reflective defects, is to increase the critical distance you can place a mic. In a live room of that size, with a drum, say, the critical distance might be as little as 6-8 inches. In an aggressively absorbed/diffused space of the same size, you might get 18" to 5 feet, which is a quantum leap in tracking capability.

That's what I'd do with a room that size. You could probably track 4-5 violinists in a space that size comfortably, I think you'd be pushing it to track more (flirting with the critical distance again, and risking boxy tracks). You can never know for sure until you've tried, but my first inclination would be to double track fewer players given the room size. I think you'd be pressing it to get much higher than 6'6" or 7' on your overheads, and for spots, you'd likely want to be down in the 2' range, maybe with some 4" foam on the floor under the mic.

The primary thing you want to be able to do, to blend with samples, is to reduce the sound of "box" at all costs.

There are quite a few people who advocate a more live studio space, but it's not practical in a space the size you're describing. However, yourò8§   rÖÙ8§   rÖÚ8§   rÖÛ8§   rÖÜ8§   rÖÝ8§   rÖÞ8§   rÖß8§   rÖà8§   rÖá8§   rÖâ8§   rÖã8§   rÖä8§   rÖå8§   rÖæ8§   rÖç8§   rÖè8§   rÖé8§   rÖê8§   rÖë8§   rÖì8§   rÖí8§   rÖî8§   rÖï8§   rÖð8§   rÖñ8§   rÖò8§   rÖó8§   rÖô8§   rÖõ8§   rÖö8§   rÖ÷8§   rÖø8§   rÖù8§   rÖú8§   rÖû8§   rÖü8§   rÖý8§   rÖþ8§   rÖÿ8§   r× 8§   r×8§   r×8§   r×8§   r×8§   r×8§   r×8§   r×8§   r×8§   r×	8§   r×
8§   r×8§   r×8§   r× 8§   r×8§   r×8§   r×8§   r×8§   r×8§   r×8§   r×8§   r×8§   r×8§   r×8§   r×8§   r×8§   r×


----------



## synthetic (Mar 5, 2008)

Killer article on building home studio acoustic panels:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html

I made my own panels using rigid 705 fiberglas wrapped in microfiber suede fabric. 2" panels in the corners, 1" elsewhere, staggered in the room. Rough diagram of my room here:

http://www.jefflaity.com/misc_pix/room_treatment.jpg

Photos: 

http://www.jefflaity.com/studio/

The result sounds great and imaging has greatly improved. I've also built panels using 703 fiberglas, you build a frame using 1x2s and stretch the fabric around it.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Mar 5, 2008)

If it were me, with that size room, I'd start by doing 6" of 703 on all the walls and ceilings, framed on 24" centers. Then I'd pick my fabric treatment, and get all the fabric up to lock in the fiberglass. Then, I'd start adding slats, panels, and diffusors.

I like Auralex T-Fusors, because there's a great trick you can do with them. First, you cut a 24 x 24 inch masonite panel to cover the back. Then, stuff them with leftover foam/fiberglass, and use construction adhesive to glue the masonite onto the back. Drill mounting holes as needed, or just hang them. The masonite/stuffing makes them do double duty as midbass absorbers.

But all of this is dependent upon how much bass you can trap in the room. That's where you'll hit a limit, and you don't want to "over-absorb" higher frequencies to a greater degree than you can get rid of bass, or you'll still get a boxy sound, it will just be humped up in the low-mid bass range...but it will sound every bit as "small" as if you'd had a boxy sound in the higher frequency range.

If you want to go very high-tech, Bag End just came out with an active bass trapping system, which is killer, particularly for rooms where there is a specific frequency or range that is killing an otherwise good space. However, your dimensions are fairly forgiving. I'd expect you to get lots of mileage out of standard treatments.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 5, 2008)

Bruce, are you saying the masonite's holes act as Helmholtz resonators? IF so, I know that stuffing inside a box broadens the Q, but I didn't know you could put it right up against the holes.

And active bass trapping. That's an interesting idea.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 6, 2008)

There are some misconceptions going around about room treatment. But this would be another topic, all I want to say here again is do yourself a favour and read the sources before you act. 

And don't believe marketing. If anybody tries to make you believe that his product is better than any other product on the market, then understand that marketing is necessary for generating sales.

BBC has published a great series of papers on acoustical practise studies:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/archive/index.shtml


----------



## synthetic (Mar 6, 2008)

Bruce, you're obviously not renting an apartment.


----------



## Rob Elliott (Mar 6, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Wed Mar 05 said:


> If it were me, with that size room, I'd start by doing 6" of 703 on all the walls and ceilings, framed on 24" centers. Then I'd pick my fabric treatment, and get all the fabric up to lock in the fiberglass. Then, I'd start adding slats, panels, and diffusors.
> 
> I like Auralex T-Fusors, because there's a great trick you can do with them. First, you cut a 24 x 24 inch masonite panel to cover the back. Then, stuff them with leftover foam/fiberglass, and use construction adhesive to glue the masonite onto the back. Drill mounting holes as needed, or just hang them. The masonite/stuffing makes them do double duty as midbass absorbers.
> 
> ...





Bruce,


I have 45 degree angles 'built into' the corner of the room. These spaces and all my 2x6 studs will be filled with 'blown' insulation (should be an R value of around 50 - covered by 5/8" sheetrock. Can I skip the rigid board step? :? (or perhaps use less)?


Many thanks again.

Rob


----------



## Rob Elliott (Mar 6, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Thu Mar 06 said:


> @Rob...
> 
> I'm speaking very generally. All the treatment I'm referring to is strictly about interior absorption, not isolation.
> 
> ...




OK - I think I understand. Many thanks again Bruce.


Rob


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 6, 2008)

Jeff, you're still doing it all wrong with the muffling on the side. I'm telling you, all that does is ruin your imaging. You only hear comb filtering when the reflections come from the same angle as the speaker, so the place to get rid of excess reverb is at the front of the room.

www.moultonlabs.com

Note that I'm talking about a set-up for monitoring. Recording, which is what we're talking about here, is a whole nother kettle of fish.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 6, 2008)

By the way, I proved that side muffling is bad in my own room. I have ASC baffles up on the sides; you're supposed to put them on the sides and front to create a "reflection-free zone."

Well, they're great broadband baffles, but I sit outside them with my NFMs toed in and have reflections-welcome zone. However, I recently added the big UREIs I posted about before, and they're affected by the baffles.

Those speakers still sound really good, but the imaging isn't the same, and I think it's more than partly because of that.


----------



## synthetic (Mar 6, 2008)

Imaò:o   s)ê:o   s)ë:o   s)ì:o   s)í:o   s)î:o   s)ï:o   s)ð:o   s)ñ:o   s)ò:o   s)ó:o   s)ô:o   s)õ:o   s)ö:o   s)÷:o   s)ø:o   s)ù:o   s)ú:o   s)û:o   s)ü:o   s)ý:o   s)þ:o   s)ÿ:o   s* :o   s*:o   s*:o   s*:o   s*:o   s*:o   s*:o   s*:o   s*:o   s*	:o   s*
:o   s*:o   s*:o   s* :o   s*:o   s*:o


----------



## ComposerDude (Mar 7, 2008)

My studio is fairly absorbent and I get excellent imaging. I also have respect for Dave Moulton who Nick is referencing on the side-reflection issue... so he may have a good point, but I don't plan to tear out the absorbers to verify, in this room at least. Because we also record vocals, voiceover, and small instruments in there, the level of absorption is just fine as is.


----------



## synthetic (Mar 7, 2008)

I did the Pepsi challenge in my room. I was working on a project before I put the baffles up, then got back to work later that day and "whoa!" It wasn't subtle. 

I looked at the Moulton site but didn't find anything about side absorbsion. Oh, there it is, Batsdorf interviews Moulton. I guess that's the article you're referring to.  I see what he's saying but I disagree. In a small room, the ER is so quick that you're not hearing it as reflections, it's just a comb filter. I would have no problem leaving a bigger room more reflective, but your average parallel-wall sheetrock bedroom is just too splashy. 

When I first got to LA the whole Live End/Dead End thing was hot, then that went away. Control rooms haven't been built that way for 20 years. I remember they all had rock walls by the soffit mount monitors, then wood panelling in the back, total 80s studio. 

When I had my post studio, the door to the recording room was directly to the left of the mix position, and the absorbsion we put there was the best $20 we ever spent. 

The real improvement would be to move my desk towards the center of the room by a few feet. But there simply isn't room for this, sigh. I'm already trying to figure out how to convince my wife to get rid of her desk so I can put in a client couch...


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 7, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Fri Mar 07 said:


> @Hannes
> 
> I think the conflicting ideas here are primarily about the **amount** of space. Yes, a "classic" approach to room treatment would not kill as much of the reflection. If this room were 40-50 feet in the larger direction, you might get something out of the room.
> 
> ...



Yes, all true, I hope I never souded as if I was saying anything different.

What I am saying is that there are different qualities of 'dry rooms'. Many small treated rooms still have low end issues with frequency response curve deviations of +/- 6 dB or bigger >8o , and I think it can be done better.


----------

