# Advice on acoustic treatment placement



## tack (Jul 16, 2016)

I thought I would create a new thread for this rather than continue to hijack the other thread.

@Nick Batzdorf suggested plenty of absorption behind the monitors and _none_ on the side walls. If you look at my room layout, and where I am thinking of placing the desk, you'll see I don't have a lot of options for side treatment anyway:







Speaker placement is going to be a challenge because most of the width of that desk is going to be consumed by LCD monitors (a 34" ultrawide, and two flank 27"). Assuming I don't sacrifice my flank monitors, I basically have three options:

Put the speakers on stands on either side of the desk, pushed as far back as I can manage without being obstructed by the flank displays
Move the flanks out wider, creating a gap between them and the main center display, and place the speakers behind them. This would allow for a more conventional placement but with the flank displays that far out to the sides it would be ergonomically unsatisfying.
Run my flanks in portrait mode and do #1, which would reduce the overall width consumed by the displays but a 27" monitor in portrait mode is pretty damn tall. 

I am thinking of bass traps in the front corners, and possibly also the rear right corner (top right of this picture -- where actually my current corner desk sits). Then several panels along the wall in front of the desk, and some http://cdn3.volusion.com/b3o4z.gn3gt/v/vspfiles/photos/9999-06801-3.gif (scatter blocks) on the rear wall behind the couch.

Apart from that, on either sides of the desk, we have a window, and mostly open space, so side treatment is limited basically to just the 2'9" section (which would mostly be taken up by a bass trap) and the section in the rear corner beside the window.

For those of you who have gone through studio builds, I am quite keen to hear suggestions given this room.

Thanks!


----------



## wst3 (Jul 17, 2016)

Before Nick posts his standard "I am right, everyone else (except Mr. Moulton) is wrong" post (Hi Nick!)...

There are several different approaches to the design of a critical listening space. Many (but not all) of them work. And while Nick may disagree, I'm not sure anyone can say that one design is superior to the others.

Chips Davis, Philip Newel, Peter D'Antonio, Art Noxon, and Dave Moulton are all excellent resources; read their papers and books and see if one approach or the other is more interesting - in general anyway, your room is going to present some challenges! For example, the LEDE(tm) approach requires about 12 feet from the back of your head to the rear wall to be effective. Even if you turn your room 90 degrees you won't have enough distance to take advantage of a live rear wall.

In general terms - you need a room that accurately reproduces your audio AND does so in a way that translates well to other environments. That's the key! It should also be comfortable, and easy to use, but if it doesn't provide you with an accurate representation of your work then it isn't working.

If you look at some of the control rooms from the 1960s and early 1970s you'll likely shake your head in disbelief. These rooms were tiny (by our standards today), and generally shaped much like yours, although they were crammed with a lot more equipment<G>! And yet some really great recordings were tracked, mixed, and even mastered in these spaces.

Which brings me to my main point... from the perspective of creating a great audio recording it does not matter which approach, if any, you choose (provided there are no physical limitations that prevent the design from functioning). What matters is that you learn how the room relates to the rest of the world. It really is, at least for me, that simple.

A short tale of audio anguish - I had the good fortune to attend a Syn-Aud-Con (a bunch of audio uber-geeks) seminar in 1986. The LEDE(tm) concept was gaining popularity, and the Syn-Aud-Con was a major supporter. As luck would have it, Dr. D'Antonio visited the class. I questioned how a room that did not let you "hear" the room could be effective, since the typical living room, or worse automobile, had tons of early reflections and bad reflections and so on. I thought it would be better to have a critical listening space that was similar to the environment where the music would be enjoyed.

They (very patiently) walked me through the logic. First, there is no such thing as a typical listening room, if there were then my approach would be great. Second, it wasn't about re-creating the listening environment, it was about re-creating, or at least not interfering with, the recording space. After about 90 minutes it did start to make sense to me. I was able to visit a 'certified' LEDE control room not too long after the class, and mix a recording. Two things stood out: the tracks were remarkably clear, it was almost as if I were sitting in the studio proper. It was really amazing and fascinating. BUT, in spite of, or maybe because of that my mix was AWFUL! It was so awash in reverb (remember, the control room contributed nothing) that it was un-listenable in the car or my living room. Quite some time later I was able to return and re-mix, and this time I kept the balance of the instruments about the same, but I backed way off on the effects. The result was much better. I would imagine that with a little more time/experience I'd figure it out.

My last control room was designed somewhat after the LEDE principles, and it worked pretty well for me. In fact when it came time to move I was really quite upset about leaving my studio behind. Life happens though, and sixteen years later I am still using half the basement, completely untreated, for my music making adventures. Well completely untreated isn't fair, the space is large, and I've located my ears and monitors such that there are no troublesome reflections. I can't tell you how eye (ear?) opening it was when I finally found the sweet spot. It is not perfectly symmetrical, but the problem areas lie far enough to the left and right that they cause minimal disturbances to the stereo image. I've also placed the loudspeakers much closer than I would like. I've also got a huge couch immediately behind me, it serves as a bit of a bass trap, and it provides some separation/isolation for recording live players.

The results have been ok to good - and any problems lie more with my continuing education in arrangement/orchestration and mixing (and using virtual instruments). I really can't blame the room or the monitors (no matter how much I'd like to!)

All of this to say that you've presented yourself with some limits (room shape and size) and you need to use that as a starting point - not some design philosophy. I believe you can create a very usable working space in there if you are willing to experiment a bit. (seriously, it was a relatively easy for me to place the monitors (and my ears) roughly as I did, but the couch was a fairly late addition to the scheme, no matter how obvious it may be to me now.)

Good luck, and have fun with the adventure!


----------



## tack (Jul 19, 2016)

wst3 said:


> Good luck, and have fun with the adventure!


Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Bill. Much appreciated.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 19, 2016)

There are lots of ways to set up a room, and you may like the conventional way (which is to muffle anywhere you think the sound would reflect off to the side). But what I'm saying is 100% true even if I'm the biggest dickhead in the world: side reflections will not interfere with the sound from the speakers, because your brain only hears comb filtering when the sounds come from the same angle.

Most likely what I'd do with your room is angle the speakers in toward you so that the side walls have no effect. Then you can soak up excess reverb wherever you have room. As Bill says - occasionally even he's right - your room isn't totally symmetrical, so what can you do. But I still think it'll sound good.

This is a picture I scribbled a while ago to explain a different point, but you can see what I mean about angling the speakers in:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 19, 2016)

I didn't mean to repeat myself.
I didn't mean to repeat myself.

Imgur changed their system so I have no idea what I'm doing.

But the point is that you can toe the speakers in toward you so that the side walls are out of their dispersion range.


----------



## Rex282 (Jul 19, 2016)

I am far from an expert so research as much as you can and take what i write with as much salt as needed.This is the basics I have picked up from the experts.

1.The speakers should be faced down the “long wall”.In your case the 10’10” wall.
2.The most critical aspect of treating you room is bass traps that are minimum in as many of the corners as possible(there are more than 4 btw).They need to be at least 4”-6” thick of treatment(rigid fiberglass or the equivalent).If possible from floor to ceiling.
3.Absorbers are hung on the wall at the 1st reflection point and are usually 2”.
4.Monitors placed around 3’-5’ apart in a equilateral from mixing position.
5.The monitors distance from the “side” walls should be the same for both (centered)
6.Your optimum mix position will be about 38% of the length of the room..in other words in your room approx 3.8’ from the front wall

The concept of a well treated room is to eliminate the acoustic anomalies such as standing waves, comb filtering,etc etc.It is not about having a “good” sounding room but one where your monitoring of the mix is accurate to what is recorded.
The most common problem is caused by low frequencies which cause masking of what is actually recorded.For example if the standing waves are phase canceling frequencies you will tend to boost or cut in your mox when it does not need a boost or cut and effectively sabotaging your mix.

The bass trap “traps the low frequencies(as much as it is possible)the absorbers absorb the mid to high frequencies but not “deaden”The goal is to hear with the most accuracy of what is recorded then mix it appropriately.That way when your mix is heard on the legion of listening environments the mix isn’t unbalanced.

There are volumes written on this subject and multiple companies that sale excellent products.Most musicians cannot afford to have a acoustic technician tune their room however with some study and thought you can come very close to a good job.Be forewarned it is a deep subject steeped in minutia that the deeper theories are still being formed.The majority I have read agree on the basics I just laid out.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 19, 2016)

Ag. The problem is that everything you read says all that stuff, and a third of of it is pure nonsense. Sorry, I'm calling a spade an f-ing shovel.

#1 yes. #2 absolutely. #5 yup yup yup, you want symmetry.

#3 is pure snake oil. The first reflection in the room is good, as I keep saying, and 2" of anything is just sticking a lowpass filter in the way to mess up your room's frequency response. I don't know how this stuff got started, let alone repeated by all these big name experts. The first reflection of the speaker in the room helps you hear the first reflection of the music in the recording.

#6 is like saying all cars are green. The optimum spacing between speakers and listening distance is a matter of taste and circumstance. An equilateral triangle is a good starting point, but there's nothing magic about it.

And all of this is probably trumped by the realities of working in these rooms. If the only consideration were acoustics, I'd block off my front window. No way am I going to do that, because the light is more important! (However, my room does have some official acoustic products, and it sounds pretty good.)

You really don't need to call in the architects to make most rooms perfectly workable for audio production. Of course I'm not talking about mastering rooms or mixing rooms for albums that are going to be heard over and over. But for get-the-job-done music stuff, normally you just need some broadband absorption at the front, usually some bass trapping (a couch usually works), and maybe a bookcase behind you for diffusion. That kinda thing.


----------



## pkm (Jul 21, 2016)

Nick, with all due respect, why don't you provide some kind of proof of what you're saying so it's not just "you vs. the experts"? It might help you not have to repeat yourself so much.

So far, the only person I've heard say first reflections are never an issue is you, and I've heard from respected educators, acousticians, engineers, etc. 

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that saying something confidently doesn't automatically mean you're right, and many people need more evidence than confidence on its own.


----------



## tack (Jul 21, 2016)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> And all of this is probably trumped by the realities of working in these rooms. If the only consideration were acoustics, I'd block off my front window.


Not just that, but this room doubles as a guest bedroom when I have visitors. So if I were to put my desk in front of the window so the speakers aim down the longer walls, I'd actually not be able to fit the futon!

I'm just trying to build the best space given practical constraints. I'm pretty confident I can do pretty well in this room.

Thanks all for your input. I don't mind the rivalry.


----------



## CACKLAND (Jul 21, 2016)

tack said:


> Not just that, but this room doubles as a guest bedroom when I have visitors. So if I were to put my desk in front of the window so the speakers aim down the longer walls, I'd actually not be able to fit the futon!
> 
> I'm just trying to build the best space given practical constraints. I'm pretty confident I can do pretty well in this room.
> 
> Thanks all for your input. I don't mind the rivalry.



What's more important? The acoustics of a room, or the futon?


----------



## tack (Jul 21, 2016)

CACKLAND said:


> What's more important? The acoustics of a room, or the futon?


The most important thing is having a functional space that has the best acoustics possible within the constraints. I'm not a pro audio engineer. I'm a hobbyist who has to occasionally host guests overnight and would rather not put them on the couch in the living room.


----------



## CACKLAND (Jul 21, 2016)

Completely understand the constraints, merely making a comment based on practically vs importance for the purpose at hand.. which as I understand is to construct a space in which the room compliments your compositions.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 21, 2016)

pkm, I've explained it too many times already and provided the link to Dave Moulton's website (that's the best one). It's not arrogance, it's simply fact.

Try it yourself - set up a room different ways and experiment! That's exactly what I did 20-odd years ago. You'll see that you can clap your hands and hear all kinds of stuff going on, but muffling the sides just makes the sound duller.

I for one don't just believe "respected experts" when I know what they're saying is incorrect. But you're free to believe whatever you want. I don't care, as long as you don't give advice to other people on my internet.


----------



## CACKLAND (Jul 21, 2016)

Nick, so basically you are informing people not to give advice on your internet (The Forum).. Therefore your 'voice' is the only one that matters and everyone should listen to you. Professionally, that is a very narrow approach.


----------



## pkm (Jul 21, 2016)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> pkm, I've explained it too many times already and provided the link to Dave Moulton's website (that's the best one). It's not arrogance, it's simply fact.
> 
> Try it yourself - set up a room different ways and experiment! That's exactly what I did 20-odd years ago. You'll see that you can clap your hands and hear all kinds of stuff going on, but muffling the sides just makes the sound duller.
> 
> I for one don't just believe "respected experts" when I know what they're saying is incorrect. But you're free to believe whatever you want. I don't care, as long as you don't give advice to other people on my internet.



Like I said, I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, not at all saying you're arrogant, just saying that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. I don't know what page you've linked to in the past, but I just read an interview between you and Dave Moulton. Again with all due respect, from what I read, I'm not at all convinced. He contradicts himself a few times, and doesn't do a very good job in my opinion of articulating his point. I'm totally open to being wrong, and would love to learn something new, but an unsubstantiated claim isn't going to change many minds.

If the opportunity to experiment like that presents itself, maybe next time I move studios, I'll give it a shot.

One thing I think we agree strongly on is that you shouldn't treat a room just to treat it. You should always be solving a problem. Sticking a bunch of Auralex foam up everywhere will probably cause more problems than it solves.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 21, 2016)

Absolutely, Cackland, that's right. Only my opinion is allowed on the internet, especially when it comes to political matters. Also, sarcasm is not tolerated.

pkm, actually I think he does a pretty good job of explaining it, and what you read as contradicting himself is just his being soft-spoken and gracious to a fault. I wish you could hear speakers with his wide-dispersion acoustic lens. That would convince you right away that muffling the side reflections isn't necessary, because the imaging with them is the best I've ever heard.

And, strangely enough, I agree with your agreement with me.  Auralex makes good products, but you have to use it the right way.

Really, I'd turn this around and ask for proof that the "first reflection" from the sides is a problem. There's no science behind it!

The truth is that there's a lot of snake oil in recording studios, from famous people endorsing products that suck to things like... what are those weird rooms with the odd slopes called... compression somethingorother. It's nonsense.

The worst to me is when you walk into a room and your own voice sounds boomy. But good rooms aren't like that.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 21, 2016)

I should add that Moulton's speakers sound very different from what we're all used to, so you won't find them in studios. They do show you recordings in a unique light, though, and they're great for listening to music on.


----------



## CACKLAND (Jul 21, 2016)

Sarcasm and arrogance can be interpreted in many different ways, especially on the internet.


----------



## tack (Jul 21, 2016)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Absolutely, Cackland, that's right. Only my opinion is allowed on the internet, especially when it comes to political matters. Also, sarcasm is not tolerated.


----------



## higgs (Jul 21, 2016)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> The worst to me is when you walk into a room and your own voice sounds boomy. But good rooms aren't like that.


Hiiiiii Nick...  Psychoacou-what?!

Edited to add more emoticons, the awesome chicken-on-the-lookout thingy, and tawdry psychoacoustic references...


----------



## Rodney Money (Jul 21, 2016)

Use headphones and your room treatment won't matter? Lol. Alright ignore me and carry on with a subject I know nothing about. Now, wasn't there a thread I needed to say something on the topic of voice leading.........


----------



## Rodney Money (Jul 21, 2016)

Hey Nick, good to meet you, I'm not sure we have ever met before. What kind of studio monitors do you recommend in a bedroom studio in a house?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 21, 2016)

Hey Rodney, the pleasure is mine.

What kind of studio monitors. Well, there was a thread asking that question a few days ago. It was several pages long, with people recommending different speakers - which says there are a lot of good ones and people have different tastes.

I assume you understand the first thing: you want speakers with a relatively linear frequency response rather than living room speakers with a scooped midrange (even though they often sound nicer at first). If you can, find a music store and listen to what they're selling, preferably with some music you know as a reference. The speakers they sell are typically powered monitors designed to be listened to from a few feet away. You can spend as much as you want!

I like the Blue Sky System One (two 6.5" + a subwoofer) because it's both pleasant to listen to and accurate for working on. It's not a cheap system, but it's also not the most expensive in the world.


----------



## Rodney Money (Jul 21, 2016)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Hey Rodney, the pleasure is mine.
> 
> What kind of studio monitors. Well, there was a thread asking that question a few days ago. It was several pages long, with people recommending different speakers - which says there are a lot of good ones and people have different tastes.
> 
> ...


Thank ya for the info!


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Jul 21, 2016)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Hey Rodney, the pleasure is mine.
> 
> What kind of studio monitors. Well, there was a thread asking that question a few days ago. It was several pages long, with people recommending different speakers - which says there are a lot of good ones and people have different tastes.
> 
> ...


Hi Nick.
Can you please explain one thing for me though... What is your avatar a picture of?
I have been looking at it with great confuzzlement for a number of years now.
Some days it looks like a funny little character with smoke coming out the ears, other days it looks like an exploding light-bulb.
Can you please shed some light on this?
Gracias


----------



## tokatila (Jul 22, 2016)

I'm having my "studio" in my bedroom in a very non-ideal location. I have to have on of my monitors in a room corner because of that. I have the calibration software from Sonarworks, which told me that my right monitor has a respectable +12 dB pump in 100hz region. 

I have acoustic treatments in my living room, so I brought a bass trap which is too large for the bedroom, but anyway wanted to test it and a single Bass Trap got -3dB from that bump, which is nice, however leaving me with still +9dB too much of a good thing. Left speaker has "only" + 6dB in the same region.

Needless to say, I use my calibrated headphones (HD600) to monitor the bass region.


----------



## brett (Jul 22, 2016)

One thing I certainly agree on is 2" absorbers are just silly. Broadband is ok but 2" ain't broadband - thicker is better, air gap behind any panels on walls. 

Also, you can get away with a lot in a poorly treated room by angling the speakers towards you and not monitoring too loud


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 22, 2016)

jdiggity, it's Rick Catsbarf from Northernenclosure.com, a brilliant site that lampooned the forum that led to this one being created. Poor Rick is always a little dazed.

The guy who created it never officially came out from behind the curtain, but he has great talents in more than one area.


----------



## tack (Jul 23, 2016)

On second thought, I think this layout is workable. This would mean the speakers would fire down along the longer edges of the room, which even Nick agreed about. 

It does however mean the front of the room is an untreatable window. The best I can do is bass traps in the corners where the speakers are located. And I think bass traps in the rear corners. I've marked the positions (corners and edges) where I think we might all agree would be useful locations for treatment?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 23, 2016)

Looks good, and I like it better than your original idea. I'd see what it sounds like before bothering with the stuff in the rear. My hunch is that it'll make less of a difference than you'd expect. Between the couch, door, and windows you may not need more bass trapping either.

Another idea would be to block off the sound coming around your speakers by framing them in absorption, sort of like this scribble:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 23, 2016)

^ Between that and your computer monitor you're creating a poor man's soffit mount.


----------



## higgs (Jul 23, 2016)

The front two locators are definitely priority for traps. I'm a firm believer in thick traps for doing an overhead cloud as well. My cloud consists of three 2'x4' panels that are 9 inches deep and are hung with a 3 inch air gap. This made a huge improvement in widening the sweet spot and it makes the ceiling almost disappear sonically. It's a low ceiling, so that's really helpful perceptively.

*Nick won't agree with me here (or here-on-out for that matter, but I heart Nick, so it's okay for him to be wrong ), but I absolutely swear by putting a muzzle on those first reflection points on the side walls between your ears and the monitors. Just a couple of simple panels on the side walls to cut out that reflection helped me tighten my mixes considerably - the sound is more focused.

My best mixes happen when I hear more of the music/instruments and less of the room. When making decisions on mixing material that will be played (hopefully) in a myriad different environments, getting the room tamed a bit usually translates to better sounding mixes in a wider range of listening spaces: cars, bedrooms, earbuds, pet rescue shelters, etc. This approach is not the way I approach recording spaces, but mixing/listening and recording are just different beasts. 

Whatever you end up doing, striving to create a comfortable environment in which the acoustics allow you to work comfortably for many hours is a task that will probably take time to massage into bliss. If you learn your speakers and room, and learn how that translates to the outside world, you're golden!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 23, 2016)

Higgs, I don't disagree with you that you like the sound better, just about what it is that you're doing by sticking crap up on the sides. And if you want to eliminate the room, why not just mix outdoors?

What you like is the sound of less room reverb: you've deadened your room. That's why you're hearing a better image; it has nothing to do with the first reflections off the side walls.

Seriously, this isn't opinion!


----------



## tack (Jul 23, 2016)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> why not just mix outdoors?


I love the argument on this thread (and others). Arguments, whether participating or observing, are a great opportunity to learn. But I think you can do much better than this quip, because the reason is rather obvious.


----------



## brett (Jul 23, 2016)

I enjoy these threads too


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 23, 2016)

tack, if you don't want the effect of the room, going outdoors would be the easiest way to get rid of it!

If you think you can make my point in a better way, I'm all ears.


----------



## higgs (Jul 24, 2016)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> And if you want to eliminate the room, why not just mix outdoors?



Honestly? It's because of all the jets. I can't stand it when 747's are all up in my bidniss.


----------



## higgs (Jul 24, 2016)

Sincerely, my room is pretty lively, it really is - I've spent a lot of time learning what it is that I want. That said, I prefer to add echo to a track, not to mix in the Grand Canyon.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 24, 2016)

The Jets, and also Bennie.


----------

