# Ceramic Tiles in Studio?!!



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 9, 2009)

I'm starting to plan a studio in my basement. A contractor friend of mine suggested ceramic tiles. I freaked, of course, due to the reflections issue, but he said I could mitigate them with large rugs (I don't want full carpeting due to potential dust/mold issues). As anyone used tiles instead of wood for their studio floor?


----------



## fv (Feb 9, 2009)

FWIW Ned,

I wouldn't use tiles myself for my studio no matter what anyone said. Why put myself at a disadvantage off the get-go unless it was for one of the rooms and because I wanted the additional reflective and excitable surfaces. Wood still reflects but it is a softer surface. I find that the reflections are warmer and tiles and other similar hard surfaces tend to impart a ring to the room sound unless the room is larger. That means you need more treatment.

That said, I'm not an acoustician. These are my personal views and observations. Take it with a grain of salt. 

FV

p.s. - whichever way you go good luck with building your room. I was supposed to start renos this summer but have to hang tight now with the uncertainty of the economy in my area.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 9, 2009)

Thanks for the opinion, much appreciated! FTR, my room will be app. 12 x 18 feet.


----------



## synthetic (Feb 9, 2009)

Definite no on the ceramic tiles unless you want it to sound like a public bathroom. Go check out "sound studio construction on a budget" by F. Alton Everest.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 9, 2009)

OK, I'm convinced! Thanks.


----------



## PolarBear (Feb 9, 2009)

argh... that's not good... 12 x 18, both can be divided by 6... that will result in some nasty boost of a certain frequency(ies)... (too lazy to calculate the Hz...) keep an eye on that also please...


----------



## rgames (Feb 9, 2009)

I moved back in October and have a new studio w/ ceramic tile. Previously, I had a big basement studio w/ area rugs over concrete. It was pretty much acoustically ideal. The new room, not so much (ahhhh, the joys of marriage...).

However, there's enough "stuff" in the room that it's not too live, even though it's smaller and has tile flooring. If it had a rug, I probably wouldn't notice too much difference. However, I'd agree that wood is probably the preferred surface.

One thing to consider: I think one of the reasons my basement studio had such good acoustics was because of the ceiling: it was 9' and I left it unfinished, so the joists and bays between them acted as great diffusers. Those were the days... sob :(

rgames


----------



## synthetic (Feb 9, 2009)

Just about every studio I've visited has had hardwood floors or carpet, or a combination of the two. 

You can do checkerboard linoleum if you want the vintage 60s vibe.


----------



## synthetic (Feb 9, 2009)

I put in parquet floors (sp?) the last time I built a studio. It looked and sounded great. 

http://rocketwerks.com/graphics/companypic1.gif


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 9, 2009)

Parquet is how it's spelled. You got it right.

Ned, just the word "mitigate" in your question should be enough. Why would you start with something that needs mitigating?! Contractors don't know anything about acoustics or soundproofing.

What is the room for - tracking, mixing, or both? That makes a big difference.

Also, the low ceilings in basements can be a problem. A lot of people try to solve that by deadening the room all around, but that doesn't work as well as other solutions.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 9, 2009)

rgames @ 9/2/2009 said:


> One thing to consider: I think one of the reasons my basement studio had such good acoustics was because of the ceiling: it was 9' and I left it unfinished, so the joists and bays between them acted as great diffusers.



My basement is completely unfinished. So are you suggesting that I should leave the joists and bays as is? It's very feasible, though my wife also works at home, on the 2nd floor. I suppose she wouldn't hear the SD2 Big Bangs too loudly, huh? :wink:


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 9, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ 9/2/2009 said:


> PWhat is the room for - tracking, mixing, or both? That makes a big difference.
> 
> Also, the low ceilings in basements can be a problem. A lot of people try to solve that by deadening the room all around, but that doesn't work as well as other solutions.



Hey Nickmesiter,

The room will be used 95% of the time for composing/mixing my work. I'll have a small recording booth for those rare occasions.

As for the ceilings... sigh... they're 6'11 bare naked (to the joists). My contractor friend (a real, close friend, btw, not just pretend - but I'm not hiring him, just getting advice) says that I'll lose about 3 inches once the floor is in. But hey, I'm not planning to record bands, small combos, or even live drums; just the odd guitar, small percs, mangled puppy, etc.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 9, 2009)

PolarBear @ 9/2/2009 said:


> argh... that's not good... 12 x 18, both can be divided by 6... that will result in some nasty boost of a certain frequency(ies)... (too lazy to calculate the Hz...) keep an eye on that also please...



Would making it 11.5 by 18 solve the problem? I can always use the extra 6 inches to stash my hookah collection. ~o)


----------



## synergy543 (Feb 9, 2009)

Ned, why not put built-in book shelves on the end to act as diffusors? This works really well and not only is cheap, but gives you both diffusors and nice book shelves.


----------



## synthetic (Feb 9, 2009)

Bookshelves are awesome diffusors that look cool. I remember reading about Bill Bottrell buying boxes of used books and chopping them up to create bookshelf diffusors for this Toad's Hall studio. 



> Would making it 11.5 by 18 solve the problem? I can always use the extra 6 inches to stash my hookah collection.



There are a few room node calculators on the net, it's worth doing a few calculations to spread out the nodes. Even better is to use non-parallel walls (rough diamond shape). Get that Everest book!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 9, 2009)

Well, there are arguments for parallel walls too. As a matter of fact I agree with those arguments, based on what I've heard. I'd put diffusion overhead to try and compensate for the low ceiling as much as possible, muffle the hell out of the front wall (with thick enough padding for bass trapping), and then leave the side walls parallel, made out of drywall. No absorption on the sides - it's impossible for your speakers to produce slap echoes on the sides.


----------



## John DeBorde (Feb 9, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Feb 09 said:


> No absorption on the sides - it's impossible for your speakers to produce slap echoes on the sides.



yeah, but wouldn't you want it if you ever open a mic in the room to record anything?

Also, wouldn't you want some kind of absorption on the side walls to stop comb filtering with the first order reflections from your monitors?

i'm just sayin. (o)


----------



## Fernando Warez (Feb 9, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Feb 09 said:


> Well, there are arguments for parallel walls too. As a matter of fact I agree with those arguments, based on what I've heard. I'd put diffusion overhead to try and compensate for the low ceiling as much as possible, muffle the hell out of the front wall (with thick enough padding for bass trapping), and then leave the side walls parallel, made out of drywall. No absorption on the sides - it's impossible for your speakers to produce slap echoes on the sides.



I get the part about the front wall but is i still don't get the logic behind the side wall being parallel. And we're talking about listening rooms here right? If you have a link or care to explain why it is so? I want to be convince  since i plan on making my own home studio and building a square room is much easier that one with angles etc...


----------



## Hannes_F (Feb 9, 2009)

Ouch. Still those urban myths around about bookshelves. And sorry Nick but you did just not really understand your friend because if you don't have absorption at the sides you need at least diffusion.

Ned, I suggest you seek some acoustican's advice ... but don't believe everything that Ethan Winer says, at least not 100 % of it.


----------



## Hannes_F (Feb 9, 2009)

Also, if you really want to use a 12 x 18 room for acoustic purposes then you _really _need acoustical help/more reading/consulting. Sorry, I don't want this to sound bold but this is really significant.


----------



## synergy543 (Feb 9, 2009)

Hannes_F @ Mon Feb 09 said:


> Ouch. Still those urban myths around about bookshelves.....


Care to explain how this is an urban myth?

How the hell is a wall of bookshelves not going to act as a diffusor?

@Batzdorf, I just took my GhettoBlaster® with a click sound into my hall which has sheetrock parallel walls and faced the speakers down the hall (so the parallel walls are on the side) and played it back full volume. Pings the hell out of my hallway.ta.ta.ta.ta.ta.... Can you explain why this is happening as you say its physically impossible?


----------



## PolarBear (Feb 9, 2009)

It's going to act like a diffusor, but not the way you might intend it should...


----------



## synergy543 (Feb 9, 2009)

My ear tells me it nicely breaks up flutter echo by difussing the sound. That's exactly what I intend it to do.


----------



## John DeBorde (Feb 9, 2009)

synergy543 @ Mon Feb 09 said:


> My ear tells me it nicely breaks up flutter echo by difussing the sound. That's exactly what I intend it to do.



I think an acoustician might tell you that it doesn't equally diffuse across a broadband of freqs, but it's certainly better than nothing. I had CDs and sample discs stacked up in the back of my old room and it certainly helped. I need to get something similar going in my current one.


----------



## synergy543 (Feb 10, 2009)

No acoustician worth his salt is going to say he can record a broadband slap echo off of my bookshelf wall unless the money goes into his pocket for a diffusor - which might btw be cheaper. If you're starting from scratch, it is more expensive to build an entire wall full of scores and books. An RPG® wood diffusor is certainly less money. 

I suppose, you could also build a bass trap behind the bookshelf as well if you want complete broadband coverage.


----------



## synthetic (Feb 10, 2009)

When a pro makes a bookshelf into a diffusor they buy a crate of used books and saw many of them in half or quarters, then glues them all into the case. 

The upside of parallel walls is that you can predict their behavior. But that doesn't mean that the results will be better.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 10, 2009)

Okay, too many posts here.

Hannes, I promise that I do know what I'm talking about.  This is something I've studied a lot about over the years. And it's a discussion I get into regularly - including one with synthetic, who still isn't convinced.

The basic point is psychoacoustic: the ear only hears comb filtering when two sounds come from the same angle. That's why you want to deaden the front wall, but the side reflections don't comb filter at all. We'd walk around hopelessly confused all the time if it didn't work that way. Remember, we're talking about the ear, not a mic, which doesn't have a brain.

It's counterintuitive, but clean reflections from the side walls actually help the imaging. You do not want diffusion on the side, Hannes. That's the argument for parallel side walls. Ceilings are another matter, because vertical reflections aren't helpful.

The best explanations are on my friend Dave Moulton's website. Dave is a real audio guru:

http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/nick_ba ... interview/

http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/making_ ... ound_good/

You can poke around the site more if you're interested.

synergy, we're talking about a room for composing, not a hallway with you at the other end or the inside of a woodwind instrument. Trust me - you'll make it easier to understand this important point if you start with the assumption that it's true.  It goes against the conventional wisdom, but while I may be stupid, I'm not crazy.

John DB - Ned has a booth for recording. This room is for monitoring. That was why I asked what the room is for - the approach is different. Again, it comes down to the difference between speakers and microphones.

Now, different people have different approaches. George Massenberg has a room with diffusion everywhere, and it's supposed to sound very good. But for someone like Ned, who I assume doesn't want to spend a fortune, the good news is that he doesn't have to.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 10, 2009)

I too disagree with Ethan Winer sometimes. He and I have had friendly arguments over the years.

But his bass traps and his DIY designs are supposed to be really good. He is a bright guy.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 10, 2009)

"The upside of parallel walls is that you can predict their behavior. But that doesn't mean that the results will be better."

Actually it does, Jeff, for the reasons I summarized above.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 10, 2009)

One other point for synergy: slap echoes are at least 50 milliseconds after the original sound, usually more; the sounds are combined in your ear when they're shorter than that. That would mean the side walls would have to be roughly 25' away from you to hear slapping (since sound travels 1.1' per millisecond at sea level bla bla bla).


----------



## synergy543 (Feb 10, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Feb 10 said:


> The basic point is psychoacoustic: the ear only hears comb filtering when two sounds come from the same angle.


Then why the heck does the sound coming from a cardboard tube (or woodwind instrument ) sound so filtered? None of the sound comes from the same angle it bounced around at. 

Exactly! All the action is happening inside that tube between parallel "side=wall" angles - and yes, Virginia....the sound is dispersing in all different directions and we end up hearing the bouncing and phasing crap that happened in that tube even though the walls were not parallel to the source nor between our ears.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 10, 2009)

snergy, I'm telling you once again: you'll make it easier for yourself to understand this if you start with the assumption that what I'm saying is true.

And I promise you it is!


----------



## synergy543 (Feb 10, 2009)

Sir, I'm a man of reason, not faith*

Please prove your point (or at least state a reasonably scientific explanation) if you want me to believe. Or better yet, how about an in-depth article?

*Although I trust you truly believe which is why I'm curious.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 10, 2009)

I just did prove it, but you can follow those links six posts above and get a better explanation.

Second, the sound you're hearing out the tube or the end of the hall is absolutely coming from the same angle by the time it reaches you. That's how waveguide synthesis works - by using delays to simulate the inside of a tube, or a plucked string, or whatever.

When you sit in the middle of a room in the normal monitoring position, however, the bounces off the walls are arriving at a different angle from the speakers.

I'm not expecting faith, but you act like what I'm saying is patently absurd. It isn't at all, it's absolutely true - and that's independent of whether or not you choose to believe it. Now, there are many opinions about what sounds good in a room, and I wouldn't have the arrogance to say that this is the only design that works. Of course it isn't.

But it is a fact that you won't hear comb filtering, much less slap echoes, off the side walls in the normal monitoring position.


----------



## Hannes_F (Feb 10, 2009)

synergy543 @ Tue Feb 10 said:


> Hannes_F @ Mon Feb 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Ouch. Still those urban myths around about bookshelves.....
> ...



I could try to explain it but I would have to explain that the process working here actually is neither diffusion nor reflection but wave diffraction ... and what diffraction is and how it works in this case.

Since this is even not easy to understand for physicists and acousticans, instead of this here is a nice demonstration done by Ethan Winer (I am not sure he does understand diffraction either but he makes nice diffusors following some cooking receipe). 

Listen yourself:
http://www.realtraps.com/video_diffusors.htm


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 10, 2009)

Oh, I forgot to add one really important point: I'm talking about stereo, not surround. I don't know about surround.


----------



## synergy543 (Feb 10, 2009)

@Batzdorf - Interesting points in the link about specular reflections from side walls helping localization. However, I'm not convinced that we want localization in a control room the way we want a room definition in Alteverb. I think the control room should be neutral. Like the difference between Altiverb rooms (room definition) and a Lexicon (reverb but no room definition). However, the point is, he's emphasizing the aspect of specular reflections as opposed to flutter echo. You can get specular reflections without completely parallel walls too which would be the best of both worlds.

@Hannes - Thanks for this link. Interesting comparisions and very informative. You could make a similar comparision holding up newspapers to your ears and turning them slowly while listening to white noise to prove to Batzdorf that you don't want reflective side walls! 

Although all these are extreme examples and I'm sure there are many variants that work. And... my guess is some of the best mockup artists here have done some of their best work under less than ideal conditions. Which proves my point that the music holy grail does not necessarily require the acoustic holy grail. And given a choice, I know which I'd prefer.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 10, 2009)

@synergy: Yah-uh you want localization when you're mixing! Hello-oh! The idea is to be able to hear as close as possible to exactly what's going on in your recordings, and localization is a hugely important part of that. You may want a spread out sound for certain instruments, but that doesn't mean you don't want to be able to hear properly.

The same goes for speakers, for that matter. If you read any speaker review, one of the important questions is how clear an image they produce.

Now remember, I'm not saying you want the same kind of room for recording! This is only for mixing in stereo (or monitoring). Two very different things.

And of course you don't need a perfect room to compose in. The music always comes before anything technical.


----------



## synergy543 (Feb 10, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Feb 10 said:


> @synergy: Yah-uh you want localization when you're mixing! Hello-oh!



Hi Nick, check out Hannes video link at 2m47 and tell that to George Massenberg. Just like me, he must be a real dummy. :wink:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 10, 2009)

I think you're just winding me up for sport, right synergy?

Did you happen to notice that I wrote this in my post earlier in the thread:



> Now, different people have different approaches. George Massenberg has a room with diffusion everywhere, and it's supposed to sound very good. But for someone like Ned, who I assume doesn't want to spend a fortune, the good news is that he doesn't have to.



A friend of mine has worked in that room with Massenberg, and he said it sounded fantastic. He certainly wouldn't say that if the imaging sucked!


----------



## synergy543 (Feb 10, 2009)

So we should have flat reflective side walls with no diffusion....unless we're George Massenberg and then diffuse side walls sound fantastic.

(Walking away scratching my head really really hard.....)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 10, 2009)

synergy, what happened to make you this way?

Honestly, I think you should sleep on a bed of diffusers if that's what you want to do.


----------



## synthetic (Feb 11, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Feb 10 said:


> "The upside of parallel walls is that you can predict their behavior. But that doesn't mean that the results will be better."
> 
> Actually it does, Jeff, for the reasons I summarized above.



Visit some pro studios and check out Mix Magazine's "Class of 200n" where they show the best new studio buildouts of the year by the top architects in the biz. (June issue.) The Van Haafs, Storyks, Bergers, bau:tons and other studio designers of the world disagree. 

If parallel walls sound so great, then every apartment building in LA would sound fabulous with hardly any treatment. I think absorbtion and diffusion is necessary in small rooms like the typical 18' x 12' x 9' home studio. Those are all factors of 3 = standing wave problems. So you need to break up those standing waves with a combination of diffusion and absorbtion. You just don't want reflections in a tiny space like that, it's ringy not reverberant. You don't need to worry about diffusion in a large hall or church, it's icing on the cake. But in a small room it rings like a balloon without diffusion and absorbtion.

I proved this when I added staggered absorbtion and bass traps to my room. You could measure the large bass resonances at the room modes, and after treatment those smoothed out A LOT. 

Oh well, there's no reasoning with a fanatic.  Continue your jihad against absorbtion.


----------



## synthetic (Feb 11, 2009)

Hannes_F @ Tue Feb 10 said:


> Listen yourself:
> http://www.realtraps.com/video_diffusors.htm



Cool video! 

I think the bookshelves thing started because Bau:ton made those diffusors that looked like bookshelves for Bottrell, or because they look a bit like bookshelves. But real diffusors are of course going to work better.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 11, 2009)

"Continue your jihad against absorbtion"

It's not a jihad against absorption at all, and I'm not a fanatic, I'm someone who understands a psychoacoustic phenomenon that bucks the conventional wisdom. You absolutely do want to get rid of extra reverb with absorption, and I agree 100% that you need bass trapping in small rooms.

All I'm saying is that the place to put the absorption is at the front of the room, not the sides, for the reason I explained: if you put it on the sides, all you're doing is screwing up sound of the bounces off the wall. You actually can make an apartment sound good that way, but of course you can't change the ratios or the problems of the small room.

What you proved in your room is something different: that bass trapping and strategically placed treatment fixed the frequency response. That doesn't conflict with what I'm saying.

I'm not really opposed to flayed walls, but I don't think they buy you anything *for a mixing room*. And the parallel walls on the sides actually will help the imaging.

By the way, my own room is proof that I'm not fanatic. I don't have it set up completely this way, because I have too much junk in here (I have ASC baffles at the sides, by my speakers are pointed in so they're outside the "reflection-free zone" you're supposed to create). But if Ned is starting from scratch, my prediction is that the flayed walls are just going to waste space and not make it sound any better.

Finally, the fact that any studio you go into has non-parallel walls only means that these people bought into the conventional wisdom. It doesn't mean it's the reason those rooms sound good, any more than it means that Speaker X is the best one because Famous Engineer Y uses it.

Besides, they tend to have bigger rooms, which solves a lot of problems in itself.


----------



## synthetic (Feb 11, 2009)

I bought a bed made of diffusors, but I couldn't tell where the alarm clock was coming from. /\~O 

Yeah, flayed walls are going to eat up space. That's probably only an option for a $500k studio and up install (floating room, professional diffusors, etc.) So you don't like ANY treatment on the side walls? Or diffusion there?

And absorbtion on the back wall, according to Ethan, is not as critical because the speakers aren't pointed that direction. So put diffusion on the back wall and then all that hits your front wall is second or third reflections. 

Here is the video of Nick's nightmares:

http://www.realtraps.com/video_ultimate.htm

Interesting that with all that absorbtion, their voices still bring out a bit of tinny room sound. That seems like a very small studio room. 

The way I understand it, first order reflections are the highest power (loudest) and give you the comb filter effect. Second and third order reflections are lower power and more scattered, so they start to become general reverb. It's the first reflections you need to worry about. So soak them up with your fiberglas sponge and be happy. 

Of course the best option is a really big room, like the ones in Mix Magazine. Moving your desk away from the front wall also helps tremendously, but again you need the room for that. Acoustic problems of a small room are different than the problems of a 30' x 50' pro studio control room. Big room reflections are pleasant, small room reflections are annoying. Like your home bathroom versus a public bathroom.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 11, 2009)

"So you don't like ANY treatment on the side walls? Or diffusion there?"

Not for a control room, no. But I do have to moderate that with another point I never made above: you will improve a room by treating it (as long as your treatment isn't haphazard) even if you do muffle the sides. A good friend of mine treated his room with probably $15k worth of stuff, and it sounds fantastic. He's put stuff up to get rid of every measurable problem.

However, his room sounds very different from a real room. You have to fight the tendency to make mixes too wet in that kind of environment, for example. And you want to keep turning it up, because it's not as loud.

That's why George Massenburg's room can sound great even though he uses a different design: he's treated his room scientifically.

"The way I understand it, first order reflections are the highest power (loudest) and give you the comb filter effect. Second and third order reflections are lower power and more scattered, so they start to become general reverb. It's the first reflections you need to worry about. So soak them up with your fiberglas sponge and be happy."

Yes, but I have to repeat: the first reflections from the sides are your friends, and because they're coming from a different angle than the speakers they won't comb filter with the sound from them.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 11, 2009)

You know, I had a hard time understanding this when Moulton first explained it to me. I mean, you'd think that the best sound would be from the speakers directly, and anything else in the room just screws them up.

But the reason we don't mix in anechoic chambers or outdoors (where there are no walls to interfere) is that you need some room reflections to hear the speakers themselves properly, just as you would if the instruments coming out those speakers were in the room.

The speakers aren't heard as the direct sound, in other words, they're just sort of passing it on.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Feb 11, 2009)

synergy543 @ Tue Feb 10 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Feb 10 said:
> 
> 
> > @synergy: Yah-uh you want localization when you're mixing! Hello-oh!
> ...



I love this room but I'm wondering about dust accumulation and how he cleans it?


----------



## synthetic (Feb 11, 2009)

I hate that Massenberg room. Talk about Fung Shui, that place would give me nightmares. 

Cool article about setting up a control room. Note the non-parallel surfaces.  

http://www.realtraps.com/art_studio.htm


----------



## synthetic (Feb 11, 2009)

I don't suggest muffling the sides completely, either. I alternate panels so that bare wall is opposite each absorption panel. But I do put the absorption panels at the monitor first reflection point as several studio designers have told me to do.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Feb 11, 2009)

> synthetic @ Wed Feb 11 said:
> 
> 
> > I hate that Massenberg room. Talk about Fung Shui, that place would give me nightmares.
> ...



Thanks for all the cool links BTW. I didn't realize he made videos.


----------



## synthetic (Feb 11, 2009)

Fernando Warez @ Wed Feb 11 said:


> > synthetic @ Wed Feb 11 said:
> >
> >
> > > I hate that Massenberg room. Talk about Fung Shui, that place would give me nightmares.
> > ...



Serious. That is the most inhospitable room I can think of. It would freak me out. I'd rather be in a concrete block basement. I'm sure it sounds great, but we're making music here. Comfort has to play some small part.


----------



## synthetic (Feb 11, 2009)

Oh, and Batsdorf called to admit defeat so we're cool.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 11, 2009)

hahaha

Okay Jeff, now let me admit some more defeat, or at least let me spout some conventional wisdom (now that I've convinced everyone that all conventional wisdom is bankrupt): if you want to be really picky, the ideal control room would be perfectly symmetrical. Alternating panels is usually more of a tracking room idea.

Okay, I lose.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 11, 2009)

Is "flayed" a word?

Or did I mean splayed?

Well, it sounded right when I wrote it, and at least one person (Jeff) knew what I mean.


----------



## synthetic (Feb 12, 2009)

A better model for home studio acoustics would be a remote recording truck. That's an example of a small space combined with spare-no-expense acoustic design. There are usually a few parked in the hall at AES if you attend. And those trucks are deader than Anna Nicole Smith. Because the alternative would be a ringy tube of pain.


----------



## ComposerDude (Feb 12, 2009)

Jeff, re the Massenberg room, perhaps you're recalling the garbage compactor scene in Star Wars...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 12, 2009)

Jeff, that's the same model. Those trucks are dead, but that's a preference and the acoustics are no different from a typical room. And if you listened to the Grammys this year, you heard the result - what went over the air had a *lot* of ambience. 

(I went to a rehearsal last Thursday and heard what it sounded like in those trucks, and it was very different from what it sounded like over the air - the sound had a *lot* more definition in that room.)

Whether to make a room or a truck or an apartment or any a specially built control room dead or live is a matter of taste.


----------

