# Studio Monitors and room treatment



## shapeshifter00 (Jan 5, 2014)

Hi guys,

This year I'm going to try and make a decent home studio, now im using AKG K240 headphones.... 
So what I am planning to get is some room treatment and a pair of monitors. I feel that I don't want to spend too much on monitors if the room is untreated, so I have been researching a lot on monitors etc. and my choice will be the new JBL LSR305, supposed to be great bang for buck.. Anyone have any experience with them for orchestral/hybrid and EDM? I'm planning to mix on them as well.. I already have some ESI nEar08, but they are a bit difficult to work with, but I guess it's mainly because they are too big for a small untreated room. Planning on using them as a second pair on a monitor stand to switch between when mixing..

What kind of room treatment on a budget would you guys suggest?


----------



## Arbee (Jan 5, 2014)

On a budget, I made my own:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/k6i4ydwr90wdfkc/Studio4.JPG

Pine frame, Acoustisorb filling held in by stapling string across the back, 3 colours of rough fabric from the local fabric shop also stapled at the back. Once packed in, the front is slightly curved. Most important, the frames have "legs" in each corner to keep each panel about 2.5 cms away from the wall. Also important is the space between panels along the wall so the sound gets behind them. Looks and works great for me (I don't have bass traps in this corner, just a big sofa where I sit to indulge my bass-junkie disposition :lol: )

.


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Jan 5, 2014)

Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf_7sC9wV8Q

That's what you can do in any case without a lot of knowledge and you do nothing wrong on the other side within a decent budget.

For doing even more: http://gikacoustics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/GIK-Acoustics-treated-test-room.jpg.jpg

Depending on your situation: More treatment needs a more professional approach.



Beat


----------



## shapeshifter00 (Jan 7, 2014)

Thanks guys, I have been planning on getting the GIK acoustics room package #1 because I don't have lots of knowledge about studio acoustics, except some basic on placement etc. I believe that will give me what I need for a small studio as a start, then if needed I can do more later on. I'm also planning on using some isoacoustics ISO L8R to place the monitors on. (http://www.isoacoustics.com/isol8r130.php). Will also get IK Multimedia ARC 2.0, heard a lot of great things about it. For me that sounds like a good improvement over what I have for a reasonable price.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 7, 2014)

Beat, that second picture is totally wrong, as I keep posting.

You want hard, flat sides! Putting foam on the sides of a small room (i.e. less than maybe 30' wide) just puts a lowpass filter in the reflections you want for good imaging.

The place to muffle is the front of the room, where the reflections from the front wall combining with the direct paths from your speakers really do cause issues.

Other than economics, it's hard to think of a field with more crazy ideas going around than acoustics!


----------



## Jem7 (Jan 8, 2014)

I don't think anything is wrong with the second picture. First reflection place absorbtion is essential for treating room.


----------



## Studio E (Jan 8, 2014)

I had a guy from Auralex design my room with a budgetary number in mind. What he came up with was very similar to the 2nd picture there.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 8, 2014)

My front wall consists only of windows and it sounds good.


----------



## FriFlo (Jan 8, 2014)

germancomponist @ Wed Jan 08 said:


> My front wall consists only of windows and it sounds good.


A window is a bass absorber.  Only a matter of tuning it right and getting the not too much ER of the high frequencies to the listening position.


----------



## FriFlo (Jan 8, 2014)

This is my control room design in the making by the way ...


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 8, 2014)

shapeshifter00 @ Sun Jan 05 said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> This year I'm going to try and make a decent home studio, now im using AKG K240 headphones....
> So what I am planning to get is some room treatment and a pair of monitors. I feel that I don't want to spend too much on monitors if the room is untreated, so I have been researching a lot on monitors etc. and my choice will be the new JBL LSR305, supposed to be great bang for buck.. Anyone have any experience with them for orchestral/hybrid and EDM? I'm planning to mix on them as well.. I already have some ESI nEar08, but they are a bit difficult to work with, but I guess it's mainly because they are too big for a small untreated room. Planning on using them as a second pair on a monitor stand to switch between when mixing..
> ...



go to ebay stores. they have pretty good deals on acustick foams. you are not making a pro studio so you dont have to go overboard. 
the ebay stores have very good deals. for about $100 i got almost the whole room covered in sections. (about 25 big panels and 8 bass traps) . auralex spends a lot in marketing, thus why so expensive. there is ex auralex guys selling their own versino of acustic foam in those ebay stores. crazy to see the auralex prices for one bass trap be so huge. 
there is a lot of presence in forums of a few acustic foam manufactures which try to sway toward their or other pro prodcuts... which , if i had a pro studio that i would rent then maybe ill try to compare and those might be good, but for your own studio.. bah, you can even make your own or get from those ebay stores im saying. tye "acustic foam" in the ebay search and youll see al kinds of stores.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 8, 2014)

FriFlo @ Wed Jan 08 said:


> germancomponist @ Wed Jan 08 said:
> 
> 
> > My front wall consists only of windows and it sounds good.
> ...



True. The very low frequencies go outside and do not come back. No reflections in the lowest frequencies.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 8, 2014)

FriFlo @ Wed Jan 08 said:


> This is my control room design in the making by the way ...



Yeah! Best places for the speakers are in the wall!


----------



## shapeshifter00 (Jan 8, 2014)

germancomponist @ Wed Jan 08 said:


> My front wall consists only of windows and it sounds good.



Looks stunning, great view. I hate having just an empty wall behind the desk.. Feels like a prison


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 8, 2014)

shapeshifter00 @ Wed Jan 08 said:


> germancomponist @ Wed Jan 08 said:
> 
> 
> > My front wall consists only of windows and it sounds good.
> ...



But it is not always stunning here. When the sky is grey and it's raining, it's terrible sometimes.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 8, 2014)

> I had a guy from Auralex design my room with a budgetary number in mind. What he came up with was very similar to the 2nd picture there.





> I don't think anything is wrong with the second picture. First reflection place absorbtion is essential for treating room.



No.

There are several misconceptions in your second sentence, which is my point: there are lots of crazy things that are totally wrong going around about acoustics, yet they've been repeated so many times that most people buy into them. The conventional wisdom - which is what you're quoting - is simply wrong.

We've gone over this many times here before, but the first issue is that what you hear off the walls isn't perceived as the first reflection of the direct sound in the speakers. The speakers are like instruments in the room, and you want those reflections so you can localize them properly.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 8, 2014)

By the way, Auralex makes very good products. It's using them that way that I disagree with.

And that's a nice room, Gunther.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 8, 2014)

By the way, I apologize if my tone comes off reading huffy rather than emphatic. The latter is what I intend - I don't mean to be a weenie.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 8, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jan 08 said:


> By the way, I apologize if my tone comes off reading huffy rather than emphatic. The latter is what I intend - I don't mean to be a weenie.



No need for an apology, Nick. o/~ 

o-[][]-o


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Jan 8, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> ...The speakers are like instruments in the room, and you want those reflections so you can localize them properly.


...using your words: That's totaly wrong...
This is an absolute provocatively statement, isn't it? - Specially in connection with matters which depend on so much things how we have with different rooms.
Nick: I believe, that your statement above belongs to a "Hifi-listening-situation". And if you like that - no problem. :lol: 

I personally don't want a lot of reflections for checking my mixes. 
I prefer the pure speaker sound more than a lot of room influences. And I believe that *shapeshifter00* asked for this situation as well, a studio monitor situation...

So back to his question:
_*What kind of room treatment on a budget would you guys suggest?*_

Here is my new approach with a bit a more careful answer (because of Nick) to *shapeshifter00*
*1. Watch this:*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf_7sC9wV8Q 
The treatments in the upper video are for using near field monitors.
"Nearfield Monitors": Such monitors should be so close to you (near field) that the room can't take a lot of influence on the sound. 
So the shown room-treatment in the video will suppress possible room influences for even better results.

Because of Nick's intervention now instead of the picture...
*2. Even more room treatment?*
If you believe that a lot of sound is reflected by the back wall and returns to your sweet spot then try to treat the back wall as well. How? Ask an expert...

Important, take into account, that Nick Batzdorf said: "This (answer No. 2) is totaly wrong"
Sorry Nick, I couldn't resist.

This completes my final statement for this thread.
Piece on earth - and happy treatments around the world - or also not.
_Beat_


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 8, 2014)

Beat, I already apologized for putting it too strongly, but this is not some half-baked nonsense I'm inventing. This is the way psychoacoustics works. I've posted this explanation many times, and it's not my opinion, it's fact.

The basic principle is that it's only reflections from the same angle as the sound from the speakers - the front - that disrupt the image. You will not disrupt the image with reflections from the sides, and the reflections will not be heard as comb filtering. That's why it's good to soak up excess reverb at the front of the room - but with broadband absorption, not just foam.

If you want to put absorbent material behind you, that's your business, but I would rather have diffusion. Overhead, absorption or diffusion, probably absorption.

Foam on the sides is not doing what you think it's doing; all it's doing is putting a lowpass filter in your room and making a mess.

Now, I scanned that video briefly, and it appears to be touting several conventional common misconceptions. One of them is the whole "nearfield monitors leave out the room" concept, which has truth in it but is overdone. You can't remove the influence of the room.

However, I didn't watch it. I don't have the patience for most videos.

Also, the notion that more acoustic products = better is sort of silly, isn't it? Wouldn't you want everything you do to have a purpose?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 8, 2014)

Underlining one other important concept: the sound from the speakers is not heard as the direct sound (unless you're listening to a dry synth).


----------



## Dan Mott (Jan 8, 2014)

Having absorption on this sides is just a personal taste.

I like panels on the sides, but I certainly wouldn't put foam there. I have Broadband panels on both sides. It does make a difference to me. It feels as though the sides are wider and I notice more of the center.

As for the front. I have tried panels there and bass traps too. It did nothing for me, other than it fixed a small null. It depends and measuring helps to find if the front wall really is an issue. In my case, it isn't. Also, too much front wall absorption can take the life out of the room, so I wouldn't go overboard there.

Ceiling absorption - Essential for me or for anyone who has a low ceiling. 

All this talk is pointless though. You need to measure with something like Room EQ Wizard. Once you find your issues, then it's a lot easier to make decisions. My room isn't the best, but at least I don't have to guess anymore.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 8, 2014)

All the walls, the ceiling and the floor in my studio were built to make it sound optimal. My side walls are very thick. Behind it you will find Basotect, cotton, wood and what not. 
In my studio I have a sound like you are in a cinema.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 8, 2014)

Dan, everything you do is a matter of personal taste. But that doesn't change the way human brains work, and it doesn't mean that what you're doing makes any logical sense.

And of course you can take all the life out of a room by putting too much absorption in the front - or anywhere else. Hence my use of the word *excess* in front of reverb.

While I'm being argumentative, all this talk is not pointless at all! Measuring your room - if you know what you're doing - is great. But you need to understand the general concepts as well.

By the way, my room is far from ideal too. But it's not bad, and I've done the best I can within the constraints of practical reality.


----------



## Dan Mott (Jan 8, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jan 09 said:


> Dan, everything you do is a matter of personal taste. But that doesn't change the way human brains work, and it doesn't mean that what you're doing makes any logical sense.
> 
> And of course you can take all the life out of a room by putting too much absorption in the front - or anywhere else. Hence my use of the word *excess* in front of reverb.
> 
> ...




When I said all this talk is pointless, I meant that we cannot really tell the OP what to do unless we see his problems on a graph - Decay time, ect. We could tell him to get all these panels, but at the end of the day, it may not work.


Good discussion, none of the less.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 8, 2014)

Another thing to add: the misconception at the root of the "gotta get rid of the room" argument is to think that the sound from the speakers is the best, and everything in the room only makes it go downhill (unless you have a "treated" room).

Well, if that were the case then why not mix outdoors? Or in an anechoic chamber?

The reality is that you want to hear what it's going to sound like in a room - unless like Gunther you're mixing for a theater, in which case you set up your room to sound like that.

And that's why Beat and most of the rest of the world is wrong.


----------



## FriFlo (Jan 9, 2014)

I discovered the flush mount method for three reasons:
1) You don't have any reflections coming from the front wall. These produce a bad comb filter effect and an undefined stereo image. Actually, Gunthers windows are the next best thing, because it is almost impossible to absorb the very low frequencies completely on a wall.
2) The half deca eder shape of the monitor front deflects ER away from the listening position, but it does not kill those, therefore you get a chance to shape the frequencie response of your room. Too many absorbers (DIY panels, foam, it doesn't really matter what brand ...) kill the high frequencies in your room which makes everything sound dull. Most people seem to forget that the HF are rather easy to control, while it is the LF (especially in a small to medium room) that cause most of the trouble!
3) It really looks nice, once you are finished.

On the other hand: I will have put one and a half years of research, learning, making mistakes and building (and a whole lot of money!!!) into an undertaking with a result I still don't know the outcome yet. TBH, if I would have known how long it would take me to get there, I am not sure I would have started at all!  But now that I am really close to the end result, it is rather exciting and I am looking forwards to working in that studio!

@Gunther: could you share some details of your build? E.g.: I cannot see clearly what you did on the ceiling ...


----------



## wst3 (Jan 9, 2014)

really don't want to get into the mud, but can't resist<G>...

Nick - the school of thought that suggests that it is good to get rid of room reflections is not wrong, nor is it bad, it is simply misunderstood. LEDE(tm), RFZ(tm) and many other design philosophies are based on the fact that some reflections can wreak havoc on what you hear.

All reflections are not bad, and in fact part of the more popular philosophies is designed to provide "useful" (as defined by that particular designer) reflections.

There is nothing inherently wrong with listening to only the loudspeakers. In theory<G> this lets you hear what happened in the recording space, and depending on how you work, that could be very helpful.

There is nothing inherently wrong with building a space that behaves like a listening room either. The non-environment approach is not the first to advance this idea, although it might be the last. With appropriate loudspeakers it works quite well.

Ultimately it is a matter of personal taste and approach to mixing.

I probably would argue that in the old days, when we actually tracked live players, a design that minimized the contribution from the critical listening space had major advantages. But that's tracking, not mixing, and not mastering.

I think that part is the biggest obstacle in understanding room design!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 9, 2014)

I'm totally down wit FriFlo's post.

Bill, of course it's 100% a matter of taste, but I have to repeat: you can't only listen to the speakers unless you're outdoors or in an anechoic chamber.

So it's all in what you do/don't do with the room; it's not possible to eliminate it, certainly not by moving closer to your speakers (although the sound obviously does change a lot when you vary your distance).

My objecton is to sticking foam up - as in the drawing Beat posted. That's not going to sound good. You're absolutely right: *some* reflections can wreak havoc with the sound. But eliminating some can wreak havoc in other ways!

Now, I happen to like the sound of RFZ (reflection-free zones for those who don't know) for "pop" music, although concert music sounds weird that way to me. But the reason that design sounds the way it does is because you're soaking up reverb, NOT because the reflections from the side are wreaking havoc. And it's not going to sound good unless the absorption is broadband, which is why ASC's stuff works so well.

LEDE...yes, that's the Moulton Room I'm talking about - the dead end is the front.

***
A practical point: you can eliminate side reflections simply by toeing in your speakers, i.e. angling your speakers toward you so the side walls are outside their dispersion range. That's what I have to do in my set-up, because the front 5' of my side walls is where I have the absorption (I have a window in front, and I'm not about to cover it).


----------



## clonewar (Jan 9, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jan 09 said:


> My objecting is to sticking foam up - as in the drawing Beat posted.



The panels in the drawing that Beat linked to aren't supposed to be foam. That picture is from GIK Acoustics, they make rigid core broadband absorbers and bass traps (they use either rigid fiberglass or mineral wool), and also diffusor products. They definitely don't advocate the use of foam. 

Michael


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 9, 2014)

Okay, then it's less bad than I thought. 

I guess I should get a life and not feel compelled to argue when I see the same misinformation repeated over and over - what difference does it make to my life, after all? - but I do find it frustrating. The old "stick an imaginary mirror up on the wall and muffle anywhere you can see the speakers" line is just wrong.


----------



## rgames (Jan 9, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jan 09 said:


> I guess I should get a life and not feel compelled to argue


Somebody PM Nick. Clearly his account has been hacked.

The thing I find most odd about acoustic room treatment debates/discussions among musicians/composers is the fact that there's almost never any data presented.

Sound waves are density perturbations moving through some medium, air in our case. The physics of those disturbances are well-understood and can be modeled and measured with amazing ease.

And yet these discussions never refer to measurements...

It's so easy. For bass response, get a cheap SPL meter and measure the response of the room before and after adding the treatment. Then show how much better it is. For reflections, do a waterfall plot. There are so many *simple* ways to quantify what you're hearing.

It is, in fact, religion. But it doesn't have to be!

rgames


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 9, 2014)

I always have to smile about when I see or read how people want to get the bass under control with bass traps.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 9, 2014)

germancomponist @ Thu Jan 09 said:


> I always have to smile about when I see or read how people want to get the bass under control with bass traps.



Why? Bass Trapping is a perfectly reasonable treatment.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 9, 2014)

rgames @ Thu Jan 09 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jan 09 said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I should get a life and not feel compelled to argue
> ...



Ain't that the truth!



rgames said:


> The thing I find most odd about acoustic room treatment debates/discussions among musicians/composers is the fact that there's almost never any data presented.



Because most musicians do not have the tools, the training, or the experience to make these measurements.



rgames said:


> Sound waves are density perturbations moving through some medium, air in our case. The physics of those disturbances are well-understood and can be modeled and measured with amazing ease.



I'm going to respectfully disagree - it is anything but easy. I've used all the current modeling tools, and they don't agree...and as far as anyone can tell, none of them are right. We can get close, but the devil is in the details, and the details are difficult, and we don't get close enough.



rgames said:


> And yet these discussions never refer to measurements...



It's so easy. For bass response, get a cheap SPL meter and measure the response of the room before and after adding the treatment.[/quote]

Again I have to disagree... where do you take your measurement? And with what size measurement microphone? Both of these will have an impact on the measurement, and you have to know what that impact is to understand the measurements.



rgames said:


> Then show how much better it is. For reflections, do a waterfall plot. There are so many *simple* ways to quantify what you're hearing.



This is even more complex. I've been measuring rooms with various techniques - including TEF, for 30 years now, and I've worked with some really bright folks who understand the tools far better than I. We all struggle to understand the significance of many of the little squiggles in those 3D plots.

Some stuff is obvious, yes. We can spot problem reflections, we can spot odd behavior in the lower octaves, and so on. But generating an accurate and meaningful energy-time-frequency plot is difficult, and interpreting it is even more so.



rgames said:


> It is, in fact, religion. But it doesn't have to be!



No, it is a science. What's the quote about the difference between science and religion being the complexity or something?


----------



## wst3 (Jan 9, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jan 09 said:


> Bill, of course it's 100% a matter of taste



Well at least we agree on one thing!



Nick Batzdorf said:


> but I have to repeat: you can't only listen to the speakers unless you're outdoors or in an anechoic chamber.



No, but with the proper execution of a design that minimizes the contribution from the room you can make the contribution from the loudspeakers the predominant actor. And that is the goal of LEDE and RFZ and others.



Nick Batzdorf said:


> So it's all in what you do/don't do with the room; it's not possible to eliminate it, certainly not by moving closer to your speakers (although the sound obviously does change a lot when you vary your distance).



OK, two things we agree on...



Nick Batzdorf said:


> My objecton is to sticking foam up - as in the drawing Beat posted. That's not going to sound good. You're absolutely right: *some* reflections can wreak havoc with the sound. But eliminating some can wreak havoc in other ways!



And what really matters is knowing which reflections are causing problems and which ones you can leave alone.



Nick Batzdorf said:


> Now, I happen to like the sound of RFZ (reflection-free zones for those who don't know) for "pop" music, although concert music sounds weird that way to me. But the reason that design sounds the way it does is because you're soaking up reverb, NOT because the reflections from the side are wreaking havoc.
> 
> Please review the literature on the RFZ concept. It does not soak up reverb - small spaces are NOT reverberant! RFZ is a geometry that insures that reflections are directed away from the listener.
> 
> ...



An excellent point!


----------



## Mahlon (Jan 9, 2014)

wst3 @ Thu Jan 09 said:


> germancomponist @ Thu Jan 09 said:
> 
> 
> > I always have to smile about when I see or read how people want to get the bass under control with bass traps.
> ...



*GOD I HOPE SO!! I just spent the last week building these fluffy bunnies.*

I know. I know.... no side vents, but they had to be pretty.

M.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 9, 2014)

So we (Bill and I) agree that I am an expert on everything. Good.



> There are so many *simple* ways to quantify what you're hearing.



You can measure frequency response, etc., but the arguments are about psychoacoustics, which is possible but harder to measure.


----------



## FriFlo (Jan 10, 2014)

The thing is, it all really depends so much on what room you are designing (Mixing, Mastering, Tracking) and what are your premises (existing room vs. dedicated new build, money and time available, ...).
Getting acoustics right or even measuring your room and interpret the data right is easy? in what world are you living in, Rgames? 
Neither would I agree with the statement, that using the mirror method to locate and weaken the ERs is right or wrong in every circumstance! In my case I won't do that for the front speakers, as there are no direct reflections due to the design. But I will do it for the sour round speakers, because the room size doesn't allow for a 120 degree setup and therefore I probably need to do it to get more consistency from the surrounds.
On the other hand, most of us composers don't do a complicated and time/money intensive build like mine, especially hobby people or people starting. Then, the ER free zone is such a basic and wide spread method, that I find it hard to believe, it would be completely wrong! Every book I read about this topic (and there are 4 in my shelf) recommends it for small project studio! So, I would not say, doing it is generally the right thing, but certainly it is not completely wrong. Maybe all posters share some pictures and insights in their studio build and what it took them to get there!? I learned a lot this way on the John Sayers forums. Otherwise you really cannot discuss these things ...


----------



## FriFlo (Jan 10, 2014)

Oh, and BTW, Nick: I f you are claiming such a thing that opposes any professional opinion I read, I would like to get a link, where someone scientifically explains your point.
Also, what are you talking about when you say angling the monitors to get the walls off the dispersion range? If your room width is set, you need to go greater than the usual 60 degree angle toward your listening position (not unheard of, but not very common indeed). But even then there is still the ERs from the monitor of the opposite side (meaning left monitor to right wall and vice versa). How will you do that by angling?


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 10, 2014)

wst3 @ Fri Jan 10 said:


> germancomponist @ Thu Jan 09 said:
> 
> 
> > I always have to smile about when I see or read how people want to get the bass under control with bass traps.
> ...



This article is about subwoofers, but also a good read about bass/frequencies... .

http://www.pro-tools-expert.com/hom...-in-your-home-studio-monitor-system-poll.html


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 10, 2014)

FriFlo, I'm talking about stereo monitoring, not tracking. Surround...I don't know much about that, simply because I've never had a lot of interest in it (that's not religious - I just haven't).

http://www.moultonlabs.com/main/cat/Acoustics/

You may like the sound of the mirror method, but the fact that side reflections don't comb filter with the front speakers isn't something to agree or disagree with! It's simply the way our brains work.

Angling speakers in: sure you'll get reflections from behind - which may or may not be disruptive (in the form of excess reverb) - but you won't get them from the bounce off the speakers, because that's outside their dispersion.

Note that I do that to avoid the absorption I have up, not to avoid the bounce off the sides! (And also to absorb behind them.)

Unfortunately I have my big speakers closer to the front corners, within the baffles on my walls. They don't image as well the closer speakers - partly because their nature and partly because of that. And that's in spite of my partially simulating soffit mounting with an LED TV monitor between them.

The practical realities of rooms.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 10, 2014)

I was looking for a picture of my baffles on ASC's site, but apparently they don't have them anymore.

The small monitor is pushed in a little behind the rack because I just walked back there, but this is the idea.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/k208ccyz8qaoz6i/photo.JPG

The big monitors suffer because of where they are.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 10, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Jan 10 said:


> FriFlo, I'm talking about stereo monitoring, not tracking. Surround...I don't know much about that, simply because I've never had a lot of interest in it (that's not religious - I just haven't).



I'm not FriFlo, and we seldom agree, and now I know why (other than the obvious, that you are always wrong<G>!)... when I design a room 9 times out of 10 I am being asked to design a room that must serve for tracking and mixing, and that means we need to be able to remove the room (to the extent that we can) from the equation. During tracking one really needs to hear the unvarnished truth, such as it is. And reflections in a controlled critical listening space must be very carefully managed for that application.

Which begs the question what about mixing. And it is a trade-off. For mixing you do want the room in the equation, but it must be in a fashion that is 100% (or as close as you can get) repeatable and predictable. The former is a function of reflections, and the later is a function of the LF energy - to a point anyway.

Mastering? Well that is mixing on steroids, and requires an approach similar to mixing, but with even more emphasis on reliably predictable.

Surround? I tried once, in my own place, and it wasn't bad. I've read quite a bit about it over the years, and it seems to be more about symmetry than anything else, and that is very difficult to pull off without experience. So I'm probably not going to spend a lot of time designing surround spaces...



Nick Batzdorf said:


> You may like the sound of the mirror method, but the fact that side reflections don't comb filter with the front speakers isn't something to agree or disagree with! It's simply the way our brains work.



Here is where we part ways - you simply can not say taht side reflections do not create problems with front speakers. It depends on all the dimensions, listener to loudspeaker, loudspeaker to boundary, etc. It is absolutely possible to have problem reflections from the side walls whether it is for tracking or mixing. It is a lot less likely to be a problem in a mix room, but it is not impossible.

Lastly, please do some research into what makes a space reverberant... most small rooms are incapable of developing a real reverberant field - it is just a messy mashup of reflections.

In any case, I am glad I finally understand why you make your arguments - the whole tracking vs mixing thing.

Bill


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 10, 2014)

We don't part ways, Bill. It is a fact that our brains separate reflections that come from a different angle, therefore (unlike mics) they don't comb filter. You can go into a totally lively gym and localize every player in a basketball game.

Now, tracking is a totally different thing, and of course side reflections can cause problems with it.

I don't separate monitoring situations, though - you want to be able to hear what's going on no matter what you're doing.

But what you call reverb or reflections...waddevvah. This is another of those phase/polarity semantic differences that are only slightly less interesting than a Chris Christie apology.

And yes, I know - you're going to say RT60 bla bla bla...


----------

