# Studio room treatment



## nik (Sep 11, 2018)

hey guys ,
i am searching for in depth literature on acoustic treatment for building a studio. i could not find a cool book yet. online literature or videos would be fine as well.
thanks in advance!!
nik


----------



## Scoremixer (Sep 11, 2018)

This one was always the classic...


----------



## nik (Sep 11, 2018)

thanks a lot that looks awsome! does it also cover the acoustic treatment for a mastering room/studio? or would u recommend anything else for that? thanks a lot


----------



## gtrwll (Sep 11, 2018)

I recently treated my room, and the wealthiest resource for me was the acoustics forum at Gearslutz:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/studio-building-acoustics/

Tons of advice and info there. At least if you go the DIY route like me.


----------



## SchnookyPants (Sep 11, 2018)

You can head on over to Ethan Winer's forum.

http://the-audio-expert.freeforums.net/

Got me set-off in the right direction.

Sayers has got a good forum, too:

http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=10304


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 11, 2018)

Beware the Internet old wive's tales. I don't want to name names and be mean, but one of the links a couple of posts up is full of ahem information - as well as some good plans for making your own bass traps.

What are you trying to set up - a monitoring room or a recording room?


----------



## jcrosby (Sep 11, 2018)

nik said:


> thanks a lot that looks awsome! does it also cover the acoustic treatment for a mastering room/studio? or would u recommend anything else for that? thanks a lot



What do mean exactly? A proper mastering room comes down to construction centered around acoustic design, isolation, etc... If you're not building a room then I would hop on gearslutz.
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/pho...54-matthew-gray-mastering-new-room-build.html

And, that isn't to say you can't master music in a home or DIY studio at all, just saying the room is the critical factor for a commercial mastering studio, and construction is the biggest defining factor in terms of "treatment". (If it weren't, mastering studios wouldn't spend several hundred thousand dollars in unnecessary construction costs...) Either way I'd head over to one of the two links above and start there.


----------



## nik (Sep 11, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Beware the Internet old wive's tales. I don't want to name names and be mean, but one of the links a couple of posts up is full of ahem information - as well as some good plans for making your own bass traps.
> 
> What are you trying to set up - a monitoring room or a recording room?


want to start with a monitoring room at home so thats priority but basically i want to learn all the theory behind building a studio as well.thanks a lot


----------



## Saxer (Sep 11, 2018)

It's like everything... studio treatment is theory and experience. If you want to go deeper inside your fifth or tenth studio will be rather ok. If you want a good studio room now ask someone who already knows what he's doing.


----------



## nik (Sep 11, 2018)

Saxer said:


> It's like everything... studio treatment is theory and experience. If you want to go deeper inside your fifth or tenth studio will be rather ok. If you want a good studio room now ask someone who already knows what he's doing.


yeah i would love a book covering all the theories


----------



## babylonwaves (Sep 12, 2018)

nik said:


> yeah i would love a book covering all the theories


"Floyd Tool / The Acoustics And Psychoacoustics Of Loudspeakers And Rooms (FocalPress)" is a great read but maybe a little over the top. There's tons of free stuff on the net but like Nick says, your mileage might vary.


----------



## nik (Sep 12, 2018)

great,thanks so much guys,lots of useful recommendations here,really appreciate the help!!!


----------



## SillyMidOn (Sep 12, 2018)

Avoid foam.

Corners are really important.

Consider:
https://gikacoustics.co.uk
they give advice for free (you fill in a form), but they are trying to sell their products, of course, but it's a no-obligation to buy advice

Also, once you've treated your room, consider adding this to it:

https://www.sonarworks.com


----------



## nik (Sep 12, 2018)

SillyMidOn said:


> Avoid foam.
> 
> Corners are really important.
> 
> ...


thanks a lot,yeah i already got a treated room with bass traps,diffusors and absorbers.I am also uusing sonarworks.its just that i wanted to get my acoustic knowledge about room treatment to a really proffessionel level. i am currently doin audio engineer education but i feel that the room acoustic and its treatment were not covered in the detail i expected....


----------



## Fab (Sep 12, 2018)

of course you don't *have* to buy their products but the advice seems solid and It greatly helped my confidence in how things should be done.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 12, 2018)

babylonwaves said:


> "Floyd Tool / The Acoustics And Psychoacoustics Of Loudspeakers And Rooms (FocalPress)" is a great read but maybe a little over the top. There's tons of free stuff on the net but like Nick says, your mileage might vary.



Floyd Toole is someone who really knows what he's talking about.

I still say his LSR28p speakers have serious problems, and I pissed the people at JBL off when I wrote that in an article 20 years ago, but he's no lightweight.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 12, 2018)

Fab said:


> of course you don't *have* to buy their products but the advice seems solid and It greatly helped my confidence in how things should be done.




Yah. I don't see that as a video unless I turn off my browser extensions, but I can see the picture... and absorption is exactly what you don't want on the sides.

In my opinion, as ranted here many, many times.


----------



## Fab (Sep 12, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Yah. I don't see that as a video unless I turn off my browser extensions, but I can see the picture... and absorption is exactly what you don't want on the sides.
> 
> In my opinion, as ranted here many, many times.



When I was researching it the internet seemed to suggest repeatedly that either side of your listening position would often benefit from some, I remember it seemed to vary depending on the room how necessary it was, and also what kind of material, how much of it etc.
---
However, It's something I haven't looked at again since my obsessive dive into the subject a while back, if I have in fact been doing it wrong please point out a few good posts, if you have the time I'd appreciate it.

I remember there was even this thing SOS did on Hz's studio for sound treatment where they did the sides, then in one of the pictures included in the article they showed Lorne Balfe's room seemed to have similar treatment on sides also> I don't get it?


thank you, no sarcasm intended I just thought I had a good enough grasp in that area for a little while.

Fab


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 12, 2018)

Well, I believe in soaking up excess reverb at the front of the room, then using hard, flat sides to help the imaging.

But Manny LaCarrubba, a guy who really knows his shinola, now recommends diffusors at the sides. I haven't tried that.

What I do know from a lot of experimentation to confirm theory is that the conventional "reflection-free zone" story, in which you try to get rid of reflections from everywhere you can see your speakers in an imaginary mirror, is wrong.


----------



## babylonwaves (Sep 13, 2018)

Fab said:


> When I was researching it the internet seemed to suggest repeatedly that either side of your listening position would often benefit from some, I remember it seemed to vary depending on the room how necessary it was, and also what kind of material, how much of it etc.


i have broadband absorbers on the sides and they've improved the room a lot. The good thing about those absorbers is that you can buy a bunch and experiment with the position. those are not that expensive and they don't need to be tuned to the room that much.


----------



## germancomponist (Sep 13, 2018)

All absorbers, bass traps e.t.c. work well only at certain volumes. The main problem is as good as always with the low frequencies. If the room is shit, then all the acoustic modules are useless.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Sep 13, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Well, I believe in soaking up excess reverb at the front of the room, then using hard, flat sides to help the imaging.
> 
> But Manny LaCarrubba, a guy who really knows his shinola, now recommends diffusors at the sides. I haven't tried that.
> 
> What I do know from a lot of experimentation to confirm theory is that the conventional "reflection-free zone" story, in which you try to get rid of reflections from everywhere you can see your speakers in an imaginary mirror, is wrong.


I'm really not a fan of anything but absorption at the side reflection points. The issue I have is that it makes things unnaturally wide and sometimes almost "surrounding." I normally end up making things too narrow and when I'm working in surround I end up sending a lot less to the surrounds as the LR sound really wide and enveloping.

Having said that, I really like having diffusion around the listening position. I find those just open things up without adding width. Perhaps makes the conventional RFZ design closer to a FTB design but I've never been in an FTB room so I don't know how those sound.

Front wall I'm not sure. I know that it's a lot more important than a lot of people say. Unfortunately in my studio I have only a small section of the front "wall" (the rest is angled from the sides) which has a large center speaker (similar to a Meyer Acheron) and a TV above it so I can't experiment with putting things there other than absorption.


----------



## jcrosby (Sep 13, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> ... and absorption is exactly what you don't want on the sides.
> 
> In my opinion, as ranted here many, many times.



Not true at all. Depends on the space, and way more importantly, it depends on what sounds good to the person using the space. Some prefer diffusion, some prefer absorption. No one can or should determine what makes sense for their space other than the person who's going to use the space and foot the bill...


----------



## babylonwaves (Sep 13, 2018)

germancomponist said:


> All absorbers, bass traps e.t.c. work well only at certain volumes. The main problem is as good as always with the low frequencies. If the room is shit, then all the acoustic modules are useless.


you might not be able to cure a bad room entirely but but saying that improvements are useless is a generic and also pointless advise. scatter echo type of problems for instance, you can effectively cure with a diffusor on the ceiling and/or side absorbers. even in a shitty room.


----------



## Tfis (Sep 13, 2018)

I made the experience, that hard side walls lead to comb filtering.


----------



## germancomponist (Sep 13, 2018)

babylonwaves said:


> you might not be able to cure a bad room entirely but but saying that improvements are useless is a generic and also pointless advise. scatter echo type of problems for instance, you can effectively cure with a diffusor on the ceiling and/or side absorbers. even in a shitty room.


Huh, where did I say this? Read my message again and get it or not, but do not put things into my mouth what I never said!!


----------



## babylonwaves (Sep 13, 2018)

germancomponist said:


> Huh, where did I say this? Read my message again and get it or not, but do not put things into my mouth what I never said!!


@germancomponist -
gunther, seems that I don't get your message. "If the room is shit, then all the acoustic modules are useless." - feel free to enlighten me on what you mean ...


----------



## wst3 (Sep 13, 2018)

to answer the question you asked - anything by Philip Newell, Phil Giddings, Floyd Toole, Don Davis, Jeff Cooper, and others that I can't think of at the moment (not in front of my bookshelf I'm afraid) will provide solid information on the theory behind various design and construction philosophies. None of them are cook books!

Largely, I believe, because there are so many variables that a cook book simply is not possible.

There are lots of other books, and way too many web sites. My experience only, but many of the books, and nearly all the web sites suffer from poor signal to noise ratios, if not outright incorrect information. (I'm not naming names either because that is how one ends up on the wrong end of legal trouble!)

It should probably be evident, but any company that offers free design services is banking on selling you something! A good thing to remember.

As mentioned, you can save a ton of time, and probably quite a bit of money by hiring someone to design the space for you. If you are curious, or wish to do this for a living then that could be useful, but study and experimentation will be better.

One of the few things I can tell you without fear of correction is that you can't make a living designing recording studios anymore. Few facilities are willing to pay a reasonable rate (and $100/hour is the bottom of reasonable) for design work. Fewer individuals can afford to.

It is probably more difficult to make a decent income from studio design than from composing... there are more outlets that need music than people that need studios I suppose.

But I digress! (and I'm really not nearly as bitter as I probably sound - sometimes you just don't get the timing right!)

It isn't really all that difficult to design a space for critical listening. 

Rule #1 is reduce noise - I was just in a performing space with a noise floor that was difficult to measure - that's impressive!

Rule #2 is manage the energy in the room. LEDE works, but is expensive and requires a LOT of "extra" space. The same applies to RFZ. The non-environment approach is probably better suited to a project studio, so that might be a good starting point. The key here is to select one approach - do not try to mix and match.

You have three tools to manage energy in a room - reflection, diffusion, and absorption. Any device you purchase or build for any of these will be frequency dependent, never forget that. Still, try to keep everything as broadband as possible, resort to tuned devices last!

Rule #3 is easiest (and hardest) of all - don't overdo it. Too much reflection, diffusion, or absorption will sound awful!

Also, don't overlook the less glamorous topics - power, grounding, interconnections, lighting, HVAC, and ergonomics.


----------



## germancomponist (Sep 13, 2018)

babylonwaves said:


> @germancomponist -
> gunther, seems that I don't get your message. "If the room is shit, then all the acoustic modules are useless." - feel free to enlighten me on what you mean ...


Exactly this, only this.


----------



## X-Bassist (Sep 13, 2018)

germancomponist said:


> Exactly this, only this.



Edit: I get what you mean. Having a 4 meter square room and cranking the vloume up to 95db is just going to fill the room, especially on something bass heavy. Bass traps help the corners of the room but not the percieved bass level when it’s saturating the room. Like with water once you hit 100% nothing will work besides listening at lower levels. You should not hear the same saturation at 75 or even 85 db (Using a simple handheld loudness meter in the room will tell you- easy to get online). Your speakers and mid to high freq diffusion and absorption in the room will help to smooth out those ranges, but the bass is a different story. Basically, like in recording rooms, if you like a big heavy bass, you have to have a big room (which brings other issue with high end and reflections) then treat it appropriately. Why do you think any pro mix rooms, like air, are large? It’s not just for the console and gear. It’s for the smooth bass response.

End Edit: You’d have to define what you mean by sh*t. I’ve fixed a lot of sh*t sounding rooms with acoustic treatment- using the right materials and custom fitting it to the room is key, but a lot can be done to make it servicable (by the way, no room is perfect, every one has a list of characteristics that are desirable or undesirable depending on the intended use. A great record room for instance are not set up the same way as a great mix room).

Now if you had said a sh*t envoironment, meaning the space and activities around a studio (being close to an airport or docks, a bus station, a truck firm, post office, ect.) then yes, the cost to block those out rise exponentially with how much surrounding sound needs to be blocked out and what frequencies / levels are involved (at some level the room needs to be rebuilt into a floating room with isolated walls), but it still can be done.

Other factors (foundation of the building, electrical distribution, air conditioning) can also make building the studio prohibitive, but I’ve worked on projects where spending the extra money was not a big deal. Again, intended purpose and how much you plan to get out of it can play a big role. Cheers.


----------



## nik (Sep 13, 2018)

wst3 said:


> to answer the question you asked - anything by Philip Newell, Phil Giddings, Floyd Toole, Don Davis, Jeff Cooper, and others that I can't think of at the moment (not in front of my bookshelf I'm afraid) will provide solid information on the theory behind various design and construction philosophies. None of them are cook books!
> 
> Largely, I believe, because there are so many variables that a cook book simply is not possible.
> 
> ...


hey thanks a lot for the great infornations,really appreciate it!! also thanks to all other posts of course!!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 13, 2018)

jcrosby said:


> Not true at all. Depends on the space, and way more importantly, it depends on what sounds good to the person using the space. Some prefer diffusion, some prefer absorption. No one can or should determine what makes sense for their space other than the person who's going to use the space and foot the bill...



It's true: tests have proven that personal preference is subjective.

But you also happen to be missing some objective facts about psychoacoustics. Sure I'm a total charlatan, but I promise you I'm not making this up out of whole cloth.


----------



## wst3 (Sep 13, 2018)

and I will pile on a little more...

It is always best, by a great margin, to start from scratch such that room dimensions, geometry, and construction are all working in your favor. Not sure I'd go so far as to say "If the room is shit, then all the acoustic modules are useless." - but there are days when I might<G>!

That said, you do have to look for little "gifts" - things about an existing space that you can take advantage of.

As an example, half our basement is unfinished, and by sheer luck two of the cinder block walls are backed by good old earth. I do not need to think about sound proofing those walls, unless the earthworms are partying I suppose. That was the only gift, and the rest of the design poses some interesting challenges.

So maybe I should really make that the first step? I mean I guess it is by default, but let's call it out!

Beyond that, there are rooms which might be serviceable, for a specific definition of serviceable, but they will never be really good rooms for critical listening. There are rooms that, with some effort (and a large enough bank account) can be made into good rooms for critical listening. There are probably even existing rooms that can be made into fantastic critical listening rooms.

One other thing I forgot to mention - if you have the enthusiasm or motivation to do it yourself you will benefit in many ways, you will know the room really well, and that is worth a lot.

Years ago, when I could make a living designing and maintaining recording studios I taught all my clients to align their tape decks and electronics. Even helped them purchase basic test equipment and taught them to use it. It probably cost me a couple service calls. But it also meant that they knew their equipment better, and in the end we both benefited.

End of old guy story!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 13, 2018)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> I'm really not a fan of anything but absorption at the side reflection points. The issue I have is that it makes things unnaturally wide and sometimes almost "surrounding."



That's personal preference, but reflective sides alone don't make the sound unnaturally wide.

Having said that, I don't work with surround, and that could change things, depending on where your speakers are positioned.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Sep 13, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> That's personal preference, but reflective sides alone don't make the sound unnaturally wide.
> 
> Having said that, I don't work with surround, and that could change things, depending on where your speakers are positioned.


Wouldn't you agree that it does make things wider? Of course there are other factors like the distance to the wall and the speakers you're using which could make you want those reflections but as a basic principle, reflections there make it wider than absorbing those reflections. I'm curious to learn about how doing different things in the front affect the sound. Having reflections there (and that includes diffusion) would seem to only break up the imaging from having those delayed signals introduced but I know many people like it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 13, 2018)

Well, sounds from the front are coming from the same angle as the speakers, so we often hear them as combined - which often results in comb filtering.

But unlike mics, our brains are able to separate sounds coming from different angles, e.g. the sides and the front. Side reflections actually help the imaging by making it easier to "localize" the speakers (even though hopefully you don't hear the sound coming from the speakers, you hear it coming from the soundstage). It's just like an instrument in the room.

I've posted this once or 20 times before, and it invariably starts an argument that I want to avoid - yet the conventional wisdom that you only want the "direct sound from the speakers" is wrong, and it kinda chafes me. 

Do reflective sides make the sound wider? I'd put it inside out: absorption on the side messes with the imaging.

If your speakers don't have the dispersion to bounce sound off the sides, however, it doesn't even matter. I actually do have my speakers within a muffled zone - barely - but they're angled in toward me so it has no effect on the imaging.

Well, that's my small speakers. My big speakers are within the absorbent zone, and the image from them is pretty lousy. But that's unavoidable.


----------



## germancomponist (Sep 13, 2018)

There are also other ways for a good sound. I'm currently no longer using speaker stands. My speakers are installed on the floor and pointed at my ears and it sounds fantastic. No standing waves! I recommend you try it once!


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Sep 13, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Well, sounds from the front are coming from the same angle as the speakers, so we often hear them as combined - which often results in comb filtering.
> 
> But unlike mics, our brains are able to separate sounds coming from different angles, e.g. the sides and the front. Side reflections actually help the imaging by making it easier to "localize" the speakers (even though hopefully you don't hear the sound coming from the speakers, you hear it coming from the soundstage). It's just like an instrument in the room.
> 
> ...


If you're not familiar with it, I'd recommend checking out the FTB (front-to-back) approach. I'm not saying it's necessarily better than any other approach but considering the people getting those rooms (like the new Sterling Mastering) there must be some credibility. The idea behind it is having the speakers with a completely aneachoic response and then a separate acoustic "environment" for people to feel comfortable in the room. Theory is one thing, whether or not Northward Acoustics can achieve this is another thing. They claim that the front wall is pretty much irrelevant when the speakers are soffited but that's not entire true.

I think part of the reason I like having diffusion around the listening position is similar to that of the FTB approach where it doesn't interact as much with the speakers but gives more "comfort" in the room.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 13, 2018)

Soffiting is great if you can do it. I wish I could, especially with my UREI 809As, which are actually intended to be mounted that way.

But the concept of anything to do with anechoic wouldn't be my preference. As I said, I believe in treating the speakers like instruments in the room, not in trying to eliminate the room.

Also, it makes sense to me to work in a room that sounds like a room! Your music isn't going to be played in a studio where your voice sounds all boomy because the highs are muffled.

But of course there's not just one room you can work in. They all sound different.

Gunther, putting the speakers on stands pointed at your ears can work very well. We used to do that when setting up higher-end stereo systems - my first jobs after high school. It wouldn't be practical for most musicians who have a computer and keyboard in front of them, unfortunately.


----------



## germancomponist (Sep 13, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Gunther, putting the speakers on stands pointed at your ears can work very well. We used to do that when setting up higher-end stereo systems - my first jobs after high school. It wouldn't be practical for most musicians who have a computer and keyboard in front of them, unfortunately.


Nick, did u ever experiment in this way, putting the speakers on the floor?
I was blown away by the (room) sound after I installed it so! Please experiment in your room and tell me ..... .


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 13, 2018)

Well, a friend who moved out of town left me a pair of Snell home speakers with about 15" tall stands. I haven't hooked them up yet, but I will this weekend.

But I know it works well with the right speakers.


----------



## germancomponist (Sep 13, 2018)

Please do what I did and tell me your results.


----------



## tmhuud (Sep 13, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Well, a friend who moved out of town left me a pair of Snell home speakers with about 15" tall stands. I haven't hooked them up yet, but I will this weekend.
> 
> But I know it works well with the right speakers.



I'm convinced Nick that you've got something going on their with speakers.


----------



## Anders Wall (Sep 13, 2018)

nik said:


> hey guys ,
> i am searching for in depth literature on acoustic treatment for building a studio. i could not find a cool book yet. online literature or videos would be fine as well.
> thanks in advance!!
> nik


You’ve got some great response already.
Chiming in with yet another link.
https://hofa-akustik.de/en/

I own some of their stuff, and the acoustic curtain looks interesting.

Best of luck,
/Anders


----------



## jcrosby (Sep 14, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> It's true: tests have proven that personal preference is subjective.
> 
> But you also happen to be missing some objective facts about psychoacoustics. Sure I'm a total charlatan, but I promise you I'm not making this up out of whole cloth.



Enlighten me.


----------



## GtrString (Sep 14, 2018)

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


----------



## jcrosby (Sep 14, 2018)

GtrString said:


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



So JXL says isolate your room but don't treat it, Toole says we acclamate to early reflections don't absorb them, Winer says ignore Toole and absorb your sidewalls, Massenburg's design suggests to diffuse your entire room to the point of no discernible ER time, and Bob Katz swears by a reflection free zone.

Clearly the preference of the listener, (let alone the shape and volume of the room), have no validity.


----------



## jononotbono (Sep 14, 2018)

This is a very good book...

Home Recording Studio: Build it like the Pros by Rod Gervais...



There are many things to consider when treating a room so it's hard to give concise answers but I made some acoustic panels using 100mm thick rigid Rockwool insulation, encased in timber frames and covered in material. They work wonders for taming mid and high freqs. Of course, if you want to spend money, you can buy ready built stuff. Room size, shape, and more importantly, size and output of studio monitors will depend on how much treatment you may or may not need. Taming Bass is another matter altogether and mass is your friend. Concrete, large air gaps between concrete walls. Let's put it this way, if you have a massive amount of bass in a tiny room, no amount of Fibreglass or insulation is going to do any good. Just my thoughts. I wish I could lie and say, "Yes, definitely cover all your walls and ceilings with Egg Boxes. Will definitely help"... I'm amazed that anybody believes some cardboard is going to do anything but people are weird. Just having a Sofa and some Shelving full of books can work wonders for treating a room (diffusing etc)

If you wanna tame just high frequencies, some acoustic foam can help but don't go made otherwise your room will sound completely dead. Anyway, I could go on and know JXL doesn't use any treatment so what do I know. It's all personal isn't it. That book is definitely a good read and goes much deeper than just sticking some treatment on a wall! 

Probably the best investment someone on a budget can make is Sonarworks Roomcorrection software.

Here's a photo of my Music Lab with Mid Traps on my walls. Zebra print optional...


----------



## Tfis (Sep 14, 2018)

wst3 said:


> As mentioned, you can save a ton of time, and probably quite a bit of money by hiring someone to design the space for you.


+1
I did this. I send him the blueprint of the room and after some phonecalls I received detailed instructions what to do (building basstraps, absorber, lower the ceiling, etc.).
Shitload of work and took me several weekends hours. When I was done (after a year or so), he visited me. We measured the room, found the right positions for the loudspeakers and did some EQ tweaking.

If you don't have expertise, you should buy it.


----------



## germancomponist (Sep 14, 2018)

germancomponist said:


> Nick, did u ever experiment in this way, putting the speakers on the floor?
> I was blown away by the (room) sound after I installed it so! Please experiment in your room and tell me ..... .


Nick, did you the experiment?


----------



## wst3 (Sep 14, 2018)

jcrosby said:


> So JXL says isolate your room but don't treat it, Toole says we acclamate to early reflections don't absorb them, Winer says ignore Toole and absorb your sidewalls, Massenburg's design suggests to diffuse your entire room to the point of no discernible ER time, and Bob Katz swears by a reflection free zone.
> 
> Clearly the preference of the listener, (let alone the shape and volume of the room), have no validity.



Listener preference i important, as is the purpose of the room. Room geometry and dimensions are very important, but more from the "how do I treat the room to get what I want" aspect.

(Aside - I'd be somewhat cautious about any advice that starts with "ignore Toole".)

Toole's comments on early reflections are considered by the vast majority of the professional audio community as correct. I just attended a workshop where the effect of early reflections was demonstrated, this is not pseudo-science, it is how the ear/brain responds to audio. And it is remarkable.

If the delay is too short you end up with severe coloration. If the delay is too long you end up with discernible echo, but there is a range where you get support. You have to hear it to believe it. And keep in mind, there is no such thing as a free lunch, even within that range some folks may have preferences.

Beyond that you have to think about the application of the room.

JXL uses his room as a production space. George M uses his space for mixing and Bob K uses his room for mastering. In the first case keeping the room sonics interesting make sense. In the second and third cases making the room "disappear" makes sense. LEDE works the same way, the idea being that you want to hear what is coming from the loudspeakers without any room effects (which, for the record, is impossible, but still a valid design approach).


----------



## onebitboy (Sep 14, 2018)

germancomponist said:


> There are also other ways for a good sound. I'm currently no longer using speaker stands. My speakers are installed on the floor and pointed at my ears and it sounds fantastic. No standing waves! I recommend you try it once!


This may of course work well for your particular room, but I'd be wary of presenting this as a universal solution to avoid standing waves. It all depends on your room shape, dimensions and other properties.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 14, 2018)

jcrosby said:


> So JXL says isolate your room but don't treat it, Toole says we acclamate to early reflections don't absorb them, Winer says ignore Toole and absorb your sidewalls, Massenburg's design suggests to diffuse your entire room to the point of no discernible ER time, and Bob Katz swears by a reflection free zone.
> 
> Clearly the preference of the listener, (let alone the shape and volume of the room), have no validity.



Straw man argument, i'nit? Nobody's saying your second paragraph isn't true.

You say Massenburg, Bob Katz, Floyd Toole... and Ethan Winer.

I say Beethoven, Stravinsky, Mozart, and Batzdorf.


----------



## germancomponist (Sep 15, 2018)

onebitboy said:


> This may of course work well for your particular room, but I'd be wary of presenting this as a universal solution to avoid standing waves. It all depends on your room shape, dimensions and other properties.


I had experimented, as I always do, and so I had found out that this works best in my room. Who said that my suggestion is meant as an universal solution???

Experimenting is my passion in almost every situation, and of course in music production, samplelibraries e.t.c. It never gets boring and more often you can find things out that can not be found in any book.

And, as a side note: My friend, she is also a composer, also had a terrible sound in her studio. We also experimented there and now the speakers are on the ground and it sounds much better.

Also in the research one comes to more and more recent knowledge, because one is experimenting, and not because one reads in books, what others have written. It can help, of course, but .... .


----------



## jononotbono (Sep 15, 2018)

Cover all your walls and ceiling with Velcro and write music in a Velcro suit. It will give the most flexible amount of listening positions.


----------



## Fab (Sep 15, 2018)

If headphones weren't so uncomfortable...man, I would just do that forever. Acoustics and speakers and all this stuff drives me mad.

Actually, the apparent contradiction in this area is quite freeing...now I have no excuse for my OCD when moving speakers by 1 millimeter at a time for fear my stereo placement isn't 90.00001 degrees accurate.


----------



## wst3 (Sep 15, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Straw man argument, i'nit? Nobody's saying your second paragraph isn't true.
> 
> You say Massenburg, Bob Katz, Floyd Toole... and Ethan Winer.
> 
> I say Beethoven, Stravinsky, Mozart, and Batzdorf.



Best response in ages!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 17, 2018)

germancomponist said:


> Nick, did you the experiment?



I did now, Gunther.

Yeah, they sound pretty good that low. More bass, nice and round. And if I go back far enough to be within the tweeters' range, the image is as good as in their normal position.

The problem is that I need to sit at my desk rather than a few feet behind it, so I couldn't leave them there if I wanted to! But if I had a mastering room, maybe I'd try that.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 17, 2018)

By the way, those Snell J Type III speakers I posted about above aren't at all bad. They sound a lot like my UREI 809As, only with better imaging (because of where I put them) and not enough bass or bass extension. The bass that's there is tight, however.

Part of the weaker bass is because I didn't hook them up to the awesome Hafler power amp that's driving the UREIs. And the UREIs have 12" woofers instead of 8", and bigger cabinets (although the Snells are roughly 30" x 16" x 12" - pretty big). But I heard enough to get the basic picture.

Still, I was expecting hyped living room speakers, and they're not like that.


----------



## germancomponist (Sep 19, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> I did now, Gunther.
> 
> Yeah, they sound pretty good that low. More bass, nice and round. And if I go back far enough to be within the tweeters' range, the image is as good as in their normal position.
> 
> The problem is that I need to sit at my desk rather than a few feet behind it, so I couldn't leave them there if I wanted to! But if I had a mastering room, maybe I'd try that.


Hi Nick,

great that you did the test and found out what I found out. Salut my friend!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 19, 2018)

Prost!


----------



## gsilbers (Sep 20, 2018)

GtrString said:


> 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.


----------



## GtrString (Sep 21, 2018)

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.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Sep 21, 2018)

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! 



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


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 21, 2018)

gsilbers said:


> 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.


----------



## DS_Joost (Sep 24, 2018)

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.


----------



## gsilbers (Sep 24, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> 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!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## gsilbers (Sep 24, 2018)

DS_Joost said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## germancomponist (Sep 24, 2018)

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.


----------



## germancomponist (Sep 24, 2018)

Listen to this: https://app.box.com/shared/uu0bnsr7l6
If you can't hear anything, you are not able to do a good mix in your room .... .


----------



## DS_Joost (Sep 25, 2018)

gsilbers said:


> 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.


----------



## babylonwaves (Sep 25, 2018)

DS_Joost said:


> 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...


----------



## Bohrium (Sep 25, 2018)

DS_Joost said:


> 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


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Sep 25, 2018)

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.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Sep 25, 2018)

For further reading, I found these posts very good from Julius:

How Not To Build A Recording Studio

Useful Tips and Advice

How much does a studio cost? - Does not give you an actual figure obviously but a good read.


----------



## wst3 (Sep 25, 2018)

DS_Joost said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 25, 2018)

gsilbers said:


> 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.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Sep 25, 2018)

Tanuj Tiku said:


> 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.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Sep 25, 2018)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> 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 Westphalen (Sep 25, 2018)

Tanuj Tiku said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Sep 25, 2018)

Gerhard, agreed there is a lot of misinformation online and it can seem hard to find the right resources. However, the biggest reason why there is so much misinformation is because people claim to know about things that they do not. 

There is no way to verify anything. Anybody can be an expert and this causes flame wars we are all familiar with. 

My opinion is that you cannot simply learn about quantum mechanics in 6 months by reading some books and start doing experiments on quantum entanglement. Yes, this is an extreme example but it holds true in moderation for just about anything. Want to learn to play the piano? Yes, you can do it - it will take a long time. Meanwhile, if you need to perform at The Royal Albert Hall in 6 months, no book or teacher is going to be able to prepare you for that. 

This does not mean that anyone who wants to learn more about this should be discouraged. Just know that it will take a few years and lots of experiments and research. 

The internet can be a difficult place to get information on this. I think reading books and AES papers or BBC papers as you mentioned from reliable authors is the way to go. This is exactly what I did. 

I read Philip Newell's book, read his AES papers. It made sense to me. I met him in Brighton, UK where he was giving a talk in a conference on acoustics. I had already worked for several years in many LEDE and similar type rooms or rooms with larger decay times and was never really happy with that. Though some of these studios also sounded good.

But, there is no way I could have built my room to this specification without a designer who had the knowledge and experience based on a decade of research conducted at the ISVR, Southampton. And I just want to write music in a good sounding space at the end of the day!

Having said that, it is possible to find solutions to problems for home and project studios. Building a typical control room which does not require military grade isolation is not very difficult. I executed Philip's design on site myself with the help of a friend who is an interior designer. She did all the drawings and understood everything from Philip. 

We built the whole studio remotely via e-mails. So, it depends what is the level of studio a person is building and what is the purpose of that studio. Certainly a project or home studio can be done very quickly. 

There is also the case of expectation management. My studio is located on the 4th floor of a small commercial building. If I wanted extremely high isolation, a concrete floor with steel mesh would have to be laid. This is simply not possible as the floor would exceed loading capacity and would collapse. So, Philip and I discussed many things in detail about what can be done and what simply cannot be achieved. Luckily, I found the right space for me and my work.

To arrive at such conclusions, I had to for example to a GPR (Ground penetrating radar) test to ascertain the thickness of the slab. We also did a cement grade testing and hammer-rebound test. This was critical as it allowed us to calculate how much live-load (this information was not available from the builder at the time plus you can never be sure) we can put on the floor and how to build support from the beams and surrounding walls to build the studio properly. 

There is a lot of stuff that goes into a successful design and I just feel its always better to hire an expert. 

Anyway, I hope the OP will find the right resources and start to plan their build soon!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 25, 2018)

Tanuj Tiku said:


> Gerhard, it may be true that there are some new technologies



I think Gerhard is talking about Helmholtz resonators. They work like a flute - the sound enters the pores sideways.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 25, 2018)

Oh. Sorry, just read his post.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 25, 2018)

Tanuj Tiku said:


> 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!



I know some guy who keeps posting exactly that every time he reads one of these threads here.



Gerhard Westphalen said:


> I think the problems you mention have more to do with sitting next to a room boundary.



If the boundary is on the side and there's a symmetrical one on the other side, that's not automatically a problem.

The same guy is always posting about that too. What an ass he is.



Tanuj Tiku said:


> Anyone sitting in the rear absolutely does not hear what you are hearing at the mixing position. Such rooms are a failure to me.
> ...
> 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.



To each his own, of course, but I *like* environment rooms. While I've never been in Massenburg's room, the exception because it has diffusors everywhere except the floor, speakers are *supposed* to sound different as you move around! If they don't, to me that means the room is too dead.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 25, 2018)

wst3 said:


> 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.



Word!



Tanuj Tiku said:


> there is a lot of misinformation online



Word!


----------



## germancomponist (Sep 25, 2018)

Tanuj Tiku speaks the truth out! Yeah, I know that many people do not like the truth..... .


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Sep 25, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> If the boundary is on the side and there's a symmetrical one on the other side, that's not automatically a problem.
> 
> The same guy is always posting about that too. What an ass he is.


We're talking about having a couch at the back of the room. I think sitting a certain distance away from the wall (not the edge of the treatment but the actual hard wall) is generally better than sitting directly in front of it. If you use thinner treatment, then I'd still try spacing out more as if you had 5' of depth taken up by treatment. If you're sitting in the middle of the room then you're as far away as possible from the side walls.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 25, 2018)

germancomponist said:


> Tanuj Tiku speaks the truth out! Yeah, I know that many people do not like the truth..... .



More like he speaks his opinion out. There's no wrong or right.

But I will say that you don't need to do a whole lot to make 95% of all rooms workable for a composer. Get rid of excess reverb and probably bass with heavy-duty absorbent material at the front of the room, add diffusors if you're rich, and off you go.


----------



## germancomponist (Sep 25, 2018)

Yeah..., I could and would never work in a room like the room of Mr. XL, but ....


----------



## wst3 (Sep 25, 2018)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> 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.


And the magic word is...

Tuned!

It is true, I can build a bass trap that will be extremely effective in very little space if I am trying to trap a single frequency - but in the real world you are almost never trying to trap a single frequency. It just does not work that way.

Double-whammy - designing a room around tuned traps is REALLY COMPLEX, and at least in my experience, tends to exaggerate problems it doesn't fix.

A broadband trap, heck, a broadband anything is always going to be easier to implement, at the cost of some other factor, in this case space.

The same is true for filters in the electronic realm, they can cause more problems than they solve if they are tuned to tightly.

There is an exception, and I have no idea how it works, but Art Noxon's (ASC) Tube Traps are remarkably effective. Actually I have an idea about why they work, but again, there is a trade-off, you have to place them in the room. (The Half Traps work well too, but in reality not significantly better than any other boundary trap, and they take up a lot of space IN the room as opposed to beyond the boundary. On the plus side, when used properly, they provide some diffusion too.


----------



## wst3 (Sep 25, 2018)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> Nothing new. Helmholtz lived 1821 - 1894. <snip>


You can go a lot further back than Helmholtz<G>!



Gerhard Westphalen said:


> 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.



There is a lot of misinformation because there are a lot of people looking for a short cut, and there is no shortage of folks willing to sell them one.

Let's take a much simpler example that troubles us all - studio wiring. We all want to keep the noise out, fair enough. With some exceptions the noise we want to keep out is magnetic (power line frequency) noise, and shielding won't work, and yet we spend lots of money on fancy shielding materials and time on insanely complex "telescoping shields". All we need is twisted pairs feeding a differential input, preferably driven by an impedance balanced signal. This was, once upon a time, EE-101. It isn't even taught any more. (And your comment on the BBC papers is spot on, also check out CBC, Bell Labs, Western Electric, and BNR as great resources on all these topics!)

Back to acoustics... bass traps aren't difficult to understand. Room design really isn't all that difficult to understand. What is difficult to understand is that there are trade-offs. Engineering is the study of optimization. It really is that simple. If you are lacking in space then you are going to have to deal with certain, well understood problems. And when someone promises you that they can tame your room for a couple hundred bucks keep your hand on your wallet and run in the opposite direction.

I happen to think that every studio owner should understand how to design their studio. I also think they should be able to align a tape deck, lap tape heads, and recondition microphones, not to mention design and build their own console (yeah, most of that is very outdated!)

But not everyone wants to do that stuff, and they should hire someone that knows the topic. Again, time vs money, an exercise in optimization! And stay away from YouTube as a source of scientific information if you don't have the background to spot the phonies.


----------



## wst3 (Sep 25, 2018)

Tanuj Tiku said:


> My opinion is that you cannot simply learn about quantum mechanics in 6 months by reading some books and start doing experiments on quantum entanglement.



Some folks can, most of us can't. I studied physics in college, including quantum mechanics (and yes, my text books are worthless 30 years later<G>!) The math required for quantum mechanics is more complex than the math required for acoustics in a small, critical listening space, but the calculations aren't, if that makes sense.



Tanuj Tiku said:


> This does not mean that anyone who wants to learn more about this should be discouraged. Just know that it will take a few years and lots of experiments and research.



Could not agree more - if you have the time and interest you should learn everything you can. Small room acoustics really isn't that difficult, just complex.



Tanuj Tiku said:


> The internet can be a difficult place to get information on this. I think reading books and AES papers or BBC papers as you mentioned from reliable authors is the way to go. This is exactly what I did.



I've never quite understood why anyone would want to read technical papers that were not peer reviewed. The AES (no, that does not stand for Almost Extinct Society] library is still the best place to find good information on any topic related to audio. The Acoustical Society of America would be a close second, but the majority of their papers deal with topics that are not directly related to music. Pity!


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Sep 25, 2018)

wst3 said:


> It is true, I can build a bass trap that will be extremely effective in very little space if I am trying to trap a single frequency - but in the real world you are almost never trying to trap a single frequency. It just does not work that way.


There are other approaches which save a lot more space than just porous absorbers which aren't tuned. Or rather are tuned but to a very broad range. Essentially diaphragmatic absorbers but there are various different kinds. I'm very interested in trying to build some VPR panels. I definitely wouldn't try to design a room around tuned traps. I almost made that mistake a few years ago when redesigning my room but thankfully someone helped me understand things some more.



wst3 said:


> There is a lot of misinformation because there are a lot of people looking for a short cut, and there is no shortage of folks willing to sell them one.


And even more people looking to DIY the short cut...



wst3 said:


> Room design really isn't all that difficult to understand.


What I've had trouble understanding isn't how the various technologies work or the various general approaches around. It's how much is actually needed. You can look at the absorption curves of various bass traps but how do you know just how many you need? At what point is it enough? You have some people who have nothing more than a few panels around their room who claim to have a world class mastering room (like Katz) and then some people with a room like from Northward where they have 1m of materials in all directions (except the floor...) and even then, is that enough? There's a lot of documentation on individual products but practically nothing available as a real world measurement to see what effect each panel has in building a room and how to know when to stop.

I've gathered quite a bit of data as I've been rebuilding all of the treatment in my room over the past year and I measure the difference that each step makes. I've gotten to a point where I can't really imagine this room sounding any better and it measures pretty well (at least comparing to the rather limited data available from other studios) but there's definitely space in the room for more treatment so I'm not sure if I should do even more... Even in my last round of adding more bass trapping I was already happy with the room and didn't think it was necessary but why not.

At the same time, some studio designers have a certain surface area coverage of the room for treatment that they aim for like 18% and they think that's all you need. Even a lot of "pro" studios have nothing but a single layer of 703 all around (there are so many things wrong with that...).


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 25, 2018)

wst3 said:


> There is an exception, and I have no idea how it works, but Art Noxon's (ASC) Tube Traps are remarkably effective.



You must have something in mind I'm not seeing, because at their core, aren't tube traps just absorption? I believe it's dense foam insulation board? - covered with chicken wire. They close the tube at the top and bottom. So the whole thing flexes to absorb a wide range of frequencies. They also make a recording setup with half the tube reflective so you can adjust the sound.

Insulation and chicken wire sounds crude, but that's like saying a house is just a bunch of studs and plaster. They're very well made, which is why they're not cheap.

I have the big panels from their setup below at the front sides of my room, but I and my speakers are outside the "reflection-free zone." It works really well - I got lucky with my room.

http://www.asc-studio-acoustics.com/products/mix-station/


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 25, 2018)

At one point I had I think four Helmholtz resonator bass traps here. They were different sizes to accommodate different freqs, plus they had some stuffing to increase their frequency range. But I didn't need them with the ASC stuff.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Sep 26, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> I know some guy who keeps posting exactly that every time he reads one of these threads here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Absolutely Nick, it is just my opinion and personal preference to work in a NE room. I have also worked in two LEDE type true Andy Munro rooms and they also sound very good. In fact these two rooms do not suffer from the dreaded LF build up in the rear. Only a small percentage. Similarly, the sweet spot is much wider and it is very enjoyable to work in these rooms as well.

The old Roger D'Arcy rooms again sound nice but can be misleading at times. It just sounds very huge with a spread but difficult to pinpoint things. Though I have only been to rooms which were designed decades ago. There must have been revisions by now.

There have been a few different types of NE designs. Philip's design means that the room has a lack of reflections as far as the speakers are concerned but not to the listener when moving around in the room or making any sounds. This is also the basic NE concept AFAIK.

The solid stone wall in the front and the hard floor make it a very pleasant place to work. But the main thing is that at least Philip's NE rooms do not 'sound dead'. They sound natural, consistent and 'huge'. Even compared to other LEDE type rooms I have been in. But yes with other designs the sound spreads a little and there is a slight hang over than can be very pleasing. However, it can also be misleading at times 

Before building the room, I read many critics saying that if the room is too 'dead' then it will be unnatural and everything will sound sterile. There were also discussions about having to add more reverb because it sounds so dry and sterile.

My experience has been completely the opposite! Because I hear the reverb in the 'recording or sound source' so clearly, I end up adding only the amount I feel is right. The room is of little consequence in such a design because it has minimum footprint. Not something I can say about many other designs. Certainly, many longer decay time rooms designed by the same designers have very little consistency between them.

As we now know, most designs all across the board are moving to shorter decay times and I can hear this as the new rooms being built in Mumbai are much tighter sounding.

A friend of mine has been in touch with Thomas Jouanjean of Northward Acoustics and he is building excellent FTB rooms. My friend who's ears I trust was in Amsterdam last year and visited a mastering room Thomas designed. He was very impressed and I think he may be building the first FTB room in Mumbai in the near future with Thomas. AFAIK, FTB rooms also have shorter decay times and sound very consistent. 

Anyway, I think there can be many types of good rooms and if the designer is left to his/her own without interference then all the top guys will deliver an excellent studio regardless of design philosophy. 

The problem is the bad information and people spending lots of money on something that 'looks' like a studio but does not 'sound' like a studio!


----------



## wst3 (Sep 26, 2018)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> What I've had trouble understanding isn't how the various technologies work or the various general approaches around. It's how much is actually needed.


I think you are mixing the science and the art, and while both play a very important role, they are not "mix-able".



Gerhard Westphalen said:


> You can look at the absorption curves of various bass traps but how do you know just how many you need? At what point is it enough?


For a small, critical listening space that is almost entirely a matter of personal taste. Almost.

We know that there has to be an initial time gap, we know that different delays (echos) can either reinforce or muddy the sound. We know that standing waves are a problem. What we don't know is why a specific design might sound good to some, and not so good to others. Honestly, I'm not sure we should<G>!



Gerhard Westphalen said:


> You have some people who have nothing more than a few panels around their room who claim to have a world class mastering room (like Katz) and then some people with a room like from Northward where they have 1m of materials in all directions (except the floor...) and even then, is that enough? There's a lot of documentation on individual products but practically nothing available as a real world measurement to see what effect each panel has in building a room and how to know when to stop.



First, keep in mind that form should follow function. If you use your space primarily for tracking you really do want the room to vanish, to the extent that it can, otherwise you are not hearing what the microphones are hearing. If you are mixing you need a room that does not exaggerate any aspect of your mix, but beyond that the liveliness of the room is a matter of personal preference, and of course learning how that affects your mix, or how your mix will translate to other rooms.

Second, well, there really is no measure of when to stop. Again, you are in the realm of personal preference.



Gerhard Westphalen said:


> I've gathered quite a bit of data as I've been rebuilding all of the treatment in my room over the past year and I measure the difference that each step makes. I've gotten to a point where I can't really imagine this room sounding any better and it measures pretty well (at least comparing to the rather limited data available from other studios) but there's definitely space in the room for more treatment so I'm not sure if I should do even more... Even in my last round of adding more bass trapping I was already happy with the room and didn't think it was necessary but why not.



Why not? Well I'd say if you are happy with the room you can save a great deal of time and money by stopping. If there is some aspect with which you are unhappy then you need to try to fix it, but you do risk breaking something else. If this is purely, or even mostly an academic exercise then there is no reason to stop, ever.



Gerhard Westphalen said:


> At the same time, some studio designers have a certain surface area coverage of the room for treatment that they aim for like 18% and they think that's all you need. Even a lot of "pro" studios have nothing but a single layer of 703 all around (there are so many things wrong with that...).



I disagree with that last comment - there is nothing wrong with using nothing but absorption to treat a room. It wouldn't be my cup of tea, but if the work translates well to the rest of the world then it is appropriate.

Each designer has their priorities, their preferences, and their experience, all guided by personal taste. I have my formula, which has been a reasonably helpful starting point for several years now. I'm not apt to share it simply because it probably won't work for anyone but me - as both a designer and a user. I use it as a starting point but then I work with the client, I listen to their comments, some of which provide guidance they didn't even realize they were sharing<G>!

Quick, amusing (I hope) tale - in 1986 I had the opportunity to discuss LEDE(tm) studio design with some of the best and the brightest. People who had built such rooms, and those rooms were highly praised. I thought the emperor was naked! Then spent several hours explaining to me how one could use an LEDE(tm) room to its best effect. Then we went off to visit one, and while the idea that it worked well was still out of reach for me, I have to admit, the results spoke for themselves.

Important caveat, these people had at their disposal a measurement system (TEF) that allowed them to view(??) the room from many different vantage points. Even today I am not aware of an audio/acoustics measurement platform that can do everything that TEF can do. There are a couple that come close, and more important, there are several that do the really important stuff really well.

TEF is a dog to learn! I've been using it, at the feet of the masters, since the mid 1980s, I've had my own license for 2 or 3 years now. Every time I use it I learn something new. It is as fascinating as it is time wasting (spending?). TEF is what let these folks look at the audio in the room to figure out what was happening, and how it could be managed.

It is not a requirement to have (and understand) TEF to design (treat actually) a room, but I'd wager there is still no better way.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Sep 26, 2018)

wst3 said:


> I disagree with that last comment - there is nothing wrong with using nothing but absorption to treat a room. It wouldn't be my cup of tea, but if the work translates well to the rest of the world then it is appropriate.


Nothing but a single 2" layer of 703? I wouldn't really call that "absorption." No low end control whatsoever. 



wst3 said:


> TEF is a dog to learn! I've been using it, at the feet of the masters, since the mid 1980s, I've had my own license for 2 or 3 years now. Every time I use it I learn something new. It is as fascinating as it is time wasting (spending?). TEF is what let these folks look at the audio in the room to figure out what was happening, and how it could be managed.


One of the studio designers who I work with and have learned a lot from was using an ancient program (I don't know the name) which required a physical serial port key so he had a 20+ year old computer to use it. Apparently it did things that nothing nowadays does but the developer refused to update the licensing system. The computer recently died so I think he's just using REW now but he doesn't really measure while designing rooms.


----------



## I like music (Sep 27, 2018)

I currently work in a 4 foot by 5 foot cupboard. Yes, it means I can only use headphones. I'll be moving house soon and getting into a proper sized room dedicated to this.

So I was naturally interested in this thread. Now, I am the most confused person in the world, so thanks to everyone, I think I'll just stay in my cupboard rather than try to sort out a room that sounds decent.


----------



## wst3 (Sep 27, 2018)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> Nothing but a single 2" layer of 703? I wouldn't really call that "absorption." No low end control whatsoever.
> That depends on how you use it - you can get absorption in lower octaves with 703, but it requires physical space - back to trade-offs<G>!
> 
> One of the studio designers who I work with and have learned a lot from was using an ancient program (I don't know the name) which required a physical serial port key so he had a 20+ year old computer to use it. Apparently it did things that nothing nowadays does but the developer refused to update the licensing system. The computer recently died so I think he's just using REW now but he doesn't really measure while designing rooms.


There are a great many orphaned programs out there for acoustical measurement and modeling. It is a tiny market, and proved to be a less than sustainable business model for software alone. TEF uses a dongle, and that dongle was, for a long time, a measurement platform that cost upwards of $10K. The most recent dongle is a specialized USB audio interface, still ain't cheap!

And part of the reason - not taking a shot at your friend - is that very few people close the circle by measuring and modeling.


----------



## Sanlky (Sep 28, 2018)

I like music said:


> I currently work in a 4 foot by 5 foot cupboard. Yes, it means I can only use headphones. I'll be moving house soon and getting into a proper sized room dedicated to this.
> 
> So I was naturally interested in this thread. Now, I am the most confused person in the world, so thanks to everyone, I think I'll just stay in my cupboard rather than try to sort out a room that sounds decent.


A nice control room tends to be big, built and designed with famous golden ratio, from scratch, but if you just want a room to mix properly your music, you can make some accoustic treament. You wont have an awesome sounding room, but you can at least treat some nodes, so at 80dba it doesnt sound ugly. If the room isnt designed you just have to treat it to make it sound a bit better, you can do that and it will sound good, not as good as a well designed room, but you will have a workable room. Its important you know how your room sounds, and how it traslate. I would only recommend if you are moving and the room wont be big, just like a normal bedroom(here is like a 2.7x3.5x2.4m for example), go with 5" speakers. But i wouldnt think about getting an awesome sounding room, just dont have stationary frecuency problems, and controlled bass(controlled means you dont lose much, and peaks are not so big). In a previous room i worked without treatment i could pan a guitar, and hearing it move to random places, stereo was really messed up, after treatment(made on some limp mass absorber and lots of chunks) i got a workable space.

In my room i have a small dip in 65hz, it tends to have a small bump in my mixes.. but generally whith my sennheiser hd650 i can mix that frec properly. I may have more accoustic problems lower, but.. unless you are working for Cinema where you should have an apropiate accoustical room with atmos or 5.1, or whatever set up you may need.... most mixes wont have many problems lower than 60hz, i prefer having a good response from 100hz up to 20000hz.


----------



## I like music (Oct 1, 2018)

Sanlky said:


> A nice control room tends to be big, built and designed with famous golden ratio, from scratch, but if you just want a room to mix properly your music, you can make some accoustic treament. You wont have an awesome sounding room, but you can at least treat some nodes, so at 80dba it doesnt sound ugly. If the room isnt designed you just have to treat it to make it sound a bit better, you can do that and it will sound good, not as good as a well designed room, but you will have a workable room. Its important you know how your room sounds, and how it traslate. I would only recommend if you are moving and the room wont be big, just like a normal bedroom(here is like a 2.7x3.5x2.4m for example), go with 5" speakers. But i wouldnt think about getting an awesome sounding room, just dont have stationary frecuency problems, and controlled bass(controlled means you dont lose much, and peaks are not so big). In a previous room i worked without treatment i could pan a guitar, and hearing it move to random places, stereo was really messed up, after treatment(made on some limp mass absorber and lots of chunks) i got a workable space.
> 
> In my room i have a small dip in 65hz, it tends to have a small bump in my mixes.. but generally whith my sennheiser hd650 i can mix that frec properly. I may have more accoustic problems lower, but.. unless you are working for Cinema where you should have an apropiate accoustical room with atmos or 5.1, or whatever set up you may need.... most mixes wont have many problems lower than 60hz, i prefer having a good response from 100hz up to 20000hz.



Thank you very much for your help. Going to digest what you have written here and hopefully put some of it to work once the move is complete!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 1, 2018)

I personally wouldn't want a system that cut off at 60Hz - and not just for production, but for listening!


----------



## wst3 (Oct 2, 2018)

There are, I think, three types of critical listeners:

The first have worked in really well done rooms and can't imagine anything else
The second have worked in really well done rooms, but accept that sometimes one must make compromises
The third have not worked in a really well done room, and have no idea what they are missing.

As one with limited means I am sometimes envious of that last group.

The fact is one can go great work in (nearly) any room. It is easier to do great work in a great room, just like it is easier to record an acoustic guitar to get "that" sound with a KM-84, but there are lots of microphones out there that get you more than 80% there, and cost a third or less of what the KM-84 cost these days.

I will build (I hope) one more purpose built studio, but in the meantime I make do with the space I have, and I really am quite content.


----------

