# WANTED: Solution for Composer Studio



## BlueStar (Dec 31, 2011)

Has anyone found a good solution for a 88 weighted keyboard
in combination with mouse + computer-keyboard at the same time?

I'm really curious how your studio looks like


----------



## lux (Dec 31, 2011)

I couldnt find any solution different from taking a musicians-designed desk with extractable keyboard mouse and keyboard plane.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Dec 31, 2011)

BlueStar @ Sat Dec 31 said:


> Has anyone found a good solution for a 88 weighted keyboard
> in combination with mouse + computer-keyboard at the same time?
> 
> I'm really curious how your studio looks like



Hi Bluestar - I have an Apple Wireless keyboard which sits on top of my SL 990 keyboard, and I use a trackball which sits alongside it. It's a comfortable combo. I'll dig out a pic from when the studio was tidy :D


----------



## Resoded (Dec 31, 2011)

Something like this?

http://www.thomann.de/gb/millenium_studio_workstation_z500_grau.htm (http://www.thomann.de/gb/millenium_stud ... 0_grau.htm)


----------



## dedersen (Dec 31, 2011)

I use a Yamaha Clavinova digital piano as my keyboard controller. It looks like this model:

http://usa.yamaha.com/products/musical- ... mode=model

I've removed the score holder on top of the piano, and instead have my keyboard sitting there, with the mouse to the right and a nanokontrol to the left. I have a desk sitting behind the piano, which fits perfectly in height with it. It works, but I am actually looking for better solutions. I just really like the feel of the Yamaha piano.


----------



## dedersen (Dec 31, 2011)

Resoded @ Sat Dec 31 said:


> Something like this?
> 
> http://www.thomann.de/gb/millenium_studio_workstation_z500_grau.htm (http://www.thomann.de/gb/millenium_stud ... 0_grau.htm)



My main issue with these kind of solutions is that I think the monitors (computer monitors, not speakers) usually end up way too high up for my liking.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Dec 31, 2011)

I've got a custom built desk with a fixed keyboard tray. Pic of the studio is here: http://www.box.com/s/ch2rtmtdcxj6qbd8g8r9


If you follow this link:http://www.stephenbaysted.com/biography/default.asp, you'll see how the wireless keyboard and mouse sits on the 88 key keyboard. 

Cheers


----------



## dedersen (Dec 31, 2011)

Ooh, now that looks perfect. Then I just need to find a replacement for my trusty digital piano. It'll look nicer sitting in the living room anyway.


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 31, 2011)

@dedersen:
Yes, in the end it always seems best to have
computer and music keyboard as close together as possible.

@Stephen:
This looks great! Wireless Keyboard on the Studio Logic keyboard looks good as well. Does your arm rest on the music keyboard, when you are typing?

Here is another nice solution. But I'm not sure, if the wireless keyboard 
would be to high:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected] ... /lightbox/

Still looking forward to see other nice solutions. Thanks guys.


----------



## lux (Dec 31, 2011)

problem with solutions that have computer keyboard and mouse more distant is that your arms start to hurt after a while, expecially if you do other typical computer based activities like writing, chatting, posting, designing...

The solution like the one in the thomann picture is similar to what i have and my arms dont actually hurt.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Dec 31, 2011)

BlueStar @ Sat Dec 31 said:


> @dedersen:
> Yes, in the end it always seems best to have
> computer and music keyboard as close together as possible.
> 
> ...



Sometimes - but it works very well and is very comfortable; that's the good thing about custom desks everything is at an ideal height and in the ideal position. I do use a trackball which helps too.


----------



## rgames (Dec 31, 2011)

Depends on how you work. For me, the best solution by far is to have one area with a big desk/small keyboard and another area with the 88-key keyboard (see pic below).

I usually block out ideas at the 88-key (Yamaha S90 ES) with the computer keyboard and mouse on it. The monitor there shows the project window. The S90 is nice because it has flat spots in a good location for the mouse. The keyboard sits on top of a pad that covers the main controls (I never use them).

Then I go to the desk and tweak there. The 61-key on the desk has only a single USB connection and it's light, so I can easily move it off the desk and onto the rack above the 88-key if I need a lot of space. Usually, though, it just sits there on the desk.

Keyboard and mouse are wireless so I just move them back and forth as I swap between the two stations.

This setup works for me because I spend only about 5% of my time at the 88 key. Once I get the ideas blocked out, I spend 95% of my time at the desk and use the 61-key as necessary.

rgames


----------



## Pochflyboy (Dec 31, 2011)

I place the controller in front also. I originally had it on top of the desk with the keyboard and mouse bellow but the controller on bottom seems to be much more comfortable.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 31, 2011)

Excuse the blatant self-promotion, but forget everything else in life. This is what you must have:

http://www.virtualinstrumentsmag.com/co ... esk_Ad.pdf

http://www.virtualinstrumentsmag.com/composersdesk/


----------



## RMWSound (Dec 31, 2011)

Here's mine. Keyboard slides in and out from that position.

-Ryan


----------



## Mahlon (Jan 1, 2012)

Ryan, that's a cool setup. Did you build the desk yourself? Very similar to my own except my keyboard doesn't slide in and out (though I wanted to build it that way; I just didn't have all the woodworking skills)

Also, now I'm going to show my complete gear-slut-i-ness, but that Novation Zero SL you've got there.... Are those faders lighted? :shock: Or is that just a reflection from the ambient light.

Please tell me it's just reflection! Or I will have gear envy, as my Zero faders are just plain ole sliders......


Mahlon


----------



## Resoded (Jan 1, 2012)

RMWSound @ 31st December 2011 said:


> Here's mine. Keyboard slides in and out from that position.
> 
> -Ryan



Very nice setup. What kind of keyboard is that?


----------



## Gabriel Oliveira (Jan 1, 2012)

Mahlon @ Sun Jan 01 said:


> Please tell me it's just reflection! Or I will have gear envy, as my Zero faders are just plain ole sliders......



just reflection, Mahlon


----------



## MacQ (Jan 1, 2012)

I don't really understand why the majority of the composer set-ups I've seen have the piano keyboard in front of the computer keyboard and mouse. This just seems backwards from a workflow perspective. I write and play on my 88-note controller all day every day, and I still found it incredibly annoying to have to reach over top for my keyboard/mouse (and find my forearms/elbows playing the piano). I use the keyboard (and especially the mouse) FAR more than the piano keyboard, and I'd wager that so do MOST of the computer-centric composers out there. 

And these custom desks with a sliding 88-key tray? It reminds me of that urban legend of the "zero-gravity-pen" that NASA spent millions on, when the Russian Cosmonauts just used ... a pencil. 

My set-up is elegant and ergonomic. It keeps the keyboard at the right height, at the right distance, with the computer keyboard and mouse suspended in front. All it required was an adjustable-height keyboard stand -- one of the "heavy-duty" ones that have fold-out legs (exactly like this one: http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/WS8550/ ), and a few pieces of wood and bolts I picked up for under $20. I splayed the legs 8 inches wider than the depth of my controller (a Korg TR88, which I bought for key-bed feel and depth-compactness), and used the holes in the stand to sink bolts through a piece of 1/2" plywood with 2x2" risers on each end. That created a ~7" shelf in front of the keyboard, just lower than the controller's key-bed. Then I just butted the desk I was using up against the back of the keyboard, and found instant bliss!

I tried all kinds of other methods (keyboard in front, under-desk keyboard/mouse tray, mounting a mouse-pad apparatus to my Aeron armrest), but this was by far the most sturdy, dependable and non-fatiguing. Also, cheap. Total cost minus the controller was in the vicinity of $150.

At this point, I was hoping to post pics, but since I'm at my wife's parents' place in Ireland over the holidays here, it'll be a day or so until I get back to the frozen Canadian wilderness to post them. But I WILL post them, and you WILL be awed/shocked when I do. 

I spend a LOT of time thinking about workflow, and constantly reevaluating my methods. My Cubase keyboard-shortcuts are ... comprehensive! It's not just about being able to produce MORE music, but about being able to spend LESS time getting to the 90% stage, so I can spend a lot more time on the 10% polish. If you're not using keyboard shortcuts for everything, I highly recommend it!

Pics forthcoming, day after tomorrow ...

~Stu


----------



## rgames (Jan 1, 2012)

This thread reminds me that I wish someone would make a "slim" 88 key controller. The problem I have with sliding the keyboard under the desk is that it takes up too much vertical space - my knees and thighs always smack into it. If it's high enough to be comfortable for my legs, the mouse and computer keyboard are too high. If it's low enough for comfortable mouse/keyboard use, it's too low for my legs.

There are some 88-key controllers that are somewhat thin but I hate the action on them. The controllers with good action always seem to be "fat" in the vertical direction.

That's the fundamental issue: piano keyboard height and mouse/computer keyboard height are most comfortable at about the same level. So if you slide one under the other, one has to be uncomfortable.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 1, 2012)

You don't want the keyboard to slide, you want the desktop to slide. If the keyboard slides then you have to move as well, and then the monitor and speakers are in the wrong position.

But if the desktop slides then you move between MIDI keyboard and desktop in half a second, and the computer keyboard and mouse are always in the right position: over the piano keys, or at the front of the desk for typing.

Trust me, I've tried a million other set-ups over the years, and they were all frustrating - and resulted in wasted money.  I've been working with this set-up for close to ten years now (first with a concoction I put together using Ultimate Support hardware and then with the VI Composers Desk for the past four years).


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 1, 2012)

> The problem I have with sliding the keyboard under the desk is that it takes up too much vertical space - my knees and thighs always smack into it. If it's high enough to be comfortable for my legs, the mouse and computer keyboard are too high. If it's low enough for comfortable mouse/keyboard use, it's too low for my legs.



You can make it work. We have the keyboard surface at standard piano height (29-1/2" I believe), and then the desktop is about 3-1/2" inches above that (depending on the keyboard). The desktop is higher than normal, but you put your elbows on chair arms and then it's totally comfortable.


----------



## RMWSound (Jan 1, 2012)

Mahlon @ Sun Jan 01 said:


> Ryan, that's a cool setup. Did you build the desk yourself? Very similar to my own except my keyboard doesn't slide in and out (though I wanted to build it that way; I just didn't have all the woodworking skills)
> 
> Also, now I'm going to show my complete gear-slut-i-ness, but that Novation Zero SL you've got there.... Are those faders lighted? :shock: Or is that just a reflection from the ambient light.
> 
> ...



Thanks! I have less-than-zero woodworking skills, so the desk was built by a friend of mine. It has made a huge difference in ergonomics over my old setup (Mile high midi keyboard w/mouse + keyboard sliding tray).

As for the Novation, sadly it is only reflection  

-Ryan


----------



## RMWSound (Jan 1, 2012)

Resoded @ Sun Jan 01 said:


> RMWSound @ 31st December 2011 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's mine. Keyboard slides in and out from that position.
> ...



It's from a CME UF80. I've removed the guts, and transplanted it into the desk. The case previously stuck up over the keys by over an inch, so this was the only way I could get the desk top as low as possible. The keys lock into playing position, but can also be pulled out, where the I can still access all of the functions if needed. They're just separated from keys and sunken in behind them.

BTW, I'm not overly crazy about the keyboard, but I haven't tried anything else out there that I thought was a major step up. At least in terms of MIDI Controllers (I do like some of the Roland and Kurz pianos better). I've been using the CME's for a couple years though, so I'm used to the action.

Ryan


----------



## rickholets (Jan 1, 2012)

I started out by just setting everything on top of my Yamaha Clavinova, but that got very fatiguing. Last spring I designed my own desk and built it. The keyboard does slide in and out, but I can stay in mostly the same position regardless of that.

Getting everything to fit closely was difficult, but I'm pretty happy with the vertical distance between the desk surface and the piano keys. Everything is comfortably accessible.












I've got a few more pictures of the building of the desk in a Facebook album. https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set ... 291&type=1

-Rick


----------



## Pochflyboy (Jan 1, 2012)

I find that having the controller in front places it at the right height without having to have a drawer for the keyboard and mouse (that uses up precious leg room) under the controller. I like sitting high at the desk but I don't want the keyboard to be too high... though I am sure other setups work too...

two things I know...
1. 90% of the time is spent on the keyboard and mouse when sequencing (or reading forum posts 

2. the 10% or so time spent playing on the controller makes it imperative that the controller is placed so it is 100% comfortable because it will make a big difference in getting the right takes and not having to replay things in... for me anyway


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 2, 2012)

Pochflyboy, I agree.

The other problem with keyboard drawers under controllers is that the position is very uncomfortable, in fact I believe a lot of physical issues are caused by that. To me the concept is all wrong - you have to tense up to hold your arms in position for both typing and mousing.

A friend of mine has his keyboard and mouse on a drawer-type thing from Ikea, but it's at the right height for his chair arms. And he doesn't use a controller keyboard, he does audio editing - he's not a controller.

I just don't see any comfortable way to put the computer keyboard below or even at controller keyboard height. At best it's going to be in the way and uncomfortable, and at worst it's going to cause carpal tunnel problems.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 2, 2012)

This is an old iPhone snapshot for one of our customers a couple of years ago. The picture sucks, but it shows how the set-up works: you slide the desktop forward in half a second and the keyboard and mouse are over the MIDI keyboard. And I'm sitting back in a lazy position, not with good posture.

It looks like my legs are squashed against the underside of the MIDI keyboard shelf, but they're not - it's just the way I'm sitting.


----------



## dedersen (Jan 2, 2012)

Nick, I like the idea of a sliding desktop, but there's something about the design of the VI's composer desk that really doesn't work for me. On a purely aesthetic level, that is. It's an oddly old-looking desk.


----------



## Mahlon (Jan 2, 2012)

dedersen @ Mon Jan 02 said:


> Nick, I like the idea of a sliding desktop, but there's something about the design of the VI's composer desk that really doesn't work for me. On a purely aesthetic level, that is. It's an oddly old-looking desk.



It does look somewhat "colonial" doesn't it -- with the ogee molding. Without the ogee, it looks much more skeek, modern. But that's what I like about it. Has nice character and sits well with antiques.

Mahlon


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 2, 2012)

That molding (edge cutting) is long gone. I didn't like it at all either, in fact to be honest my heart sank immediately when the woodworking guy brought it in. We need to replace the picture.

Having said that, about 50% of our customers have ordered it with that edge cutting, so what can you say.

The way it is now, I really like the look.

This is a picture of an "installed" desk in a studio belonging to one of our customers, showing what it looks like now. He has his computer keyboard in front of the MIDI keyboard, but just that's because he was recording guitar for a TV series he was working on. Normally he has it in the normal place, and his computer monitors aren't so far forward either.

http://gallery.me.com/virtualinstrument ... olor=black


----------



## dedersen (Jan 2, 2012)

Could you post a few pictures of the new version? Other than that "colonial" look, as Mahlon put it, I quite like the ideas of the desk. And I'm browsing for a better solution than my current Clavinova+matching desk setup.

EDIT: Actually, come to think of it, it'll probably cost me a small fortune to ship it from the US so it's probably not an option for me anyway.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 2, 2012)

It's about $400 to ship internationally. We've done it before.

By the way, I'm not posting here seriously as a salesman. Yes I like large amounts of money, but my comments about the sliding desktop are just as a private citizen.


----------



## Mahlon (Jan 2, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Jan 02 said:


> ...The way it is now, I really like the look.
> 
> http://gallery.me.com/virtualinstrument ... olor=black



Oh yeah, that looks good. I like the look without the edge cutting better.

Mahlon


----------



## adg21 (Jan 2, 2012)

I'm not sure why you'd bother placing your (piano keys) keyboard on a shelf. Shelf just means more wood which hogs more leg space. Why not just have plinths either side of the 88 keys keyboard - I use 2 bedside tables. Then push those plinths half way under a large dining table, so just the keys only protrude. Place everything else on your big workspace / table. Works fine and it's cheap.



rgames @ Sun Jan 01 said:


> This thread reminds me that I wish someone would make a "slim" 88 key controller. The problem I have with sliding the keyboard under the desk is that it takes up too much vertical space - my knees and thighs always smack into it. If it's high enough to be comfortable for my legs, the mouse and computer keyboard are too high. If it's low enough for comfortable mouse/keyboard use, it's too low for my legs.
> 
> rgames



I agree. FWIW the new Studiologic VMK-88 Plus look quite thin.


----------



## rickholets (Jan 3, 2012)

adg21 @ Mon Jan 02 said:


> I'm not sure why you'd bother placing your (piano keys) keyboard on a shelf. Shelf just means more wood which hogs more leg space. Why not just have plinths either side of the 88 keys keyboard - I use 2 bedside tables. Then push those plinths half way under a large dining table, so just the keys only protrude. Place everything else on your big workspace / table. Works fine and it's cheap.
> 
> I agree. FWIW the new Studiologic VMK-88 Plus look quite thin.



The shelf for my piano keyboard takes up about .75" vertical space. I've got 24" leg clearance below the piano shelf and the mouse and keyboard sit at 30.75". It's very comfortable to me.


----------



## whinecellar (Jan 3, 2012)

Not sure how helpful it is, but here's the best compromise I could find for my workflow:

http://www.whinecellarstudio.com/home/tour.html#1

I wanted all this stuff within comfortable reach, and there are a lot of controllers to contend with. Gets the job done for me and allows both 88 weighted and 61 synth action keys - each has their strengths depending on the part I'm playing...


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 3, 2012)

whinecellar @ Tue Jan 03 said:


> Not sure how helpful it is, but here's the best compromise I could find for my workflow:
> 
> http://www.whinecellarstudio.com/home/tour.html#1
> 
> I wanted all this stuff within comfortable reach, and there are a lot of controllers to contend with. Gets the job done for me and allows both 88 weighted and 61 synth action keys - each has their strengths depending on the part I'm playing...



nice! 

what Monitor is that (main big one)?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 3, 2012)

> I'm not sure why you'd bother placing your (piano keys) keyboard on a shelf. Shelf just means more wood which hogs more leg space. Why not just have plinths either side of the 88 keys keyboard - I use 2 bedside tables.



The 3/4" of leg space is irrelevant for people under about 6'3" (depending on individual proportions), but in our case the shelf supports the frame, and it's an integral part of our particular design.

Having said that, we're in the middle of building a desk for a 6'4" guy using 1/8" steel instead of the 3/4" ply. We may switch to that.

Also, while no one has asked for this, we can replace the legs with rack cabinets as an option. In that case the keyboard would just sit on the tops.


----------



## whinecellar (Jan 3, 2012)

gsilbers @ Tue Jan 03 said:


> what Monitor is that (main big one)?



It's just a 37" Samsung 1080p TV. There are few brands of large LCD TVs that properly display a DVI/HDMI computer input - most do some funky consumer processing that makes everything look slightly cartoonish. Samsung, Sony & LG were (at the time) the only ones I could find that looked like a proper computer display...


----------



## rayinstirling (Jan 3, 2012)

In my humble opinion, all these pics show near field monitors too close the wall behind them
I found bringing the speakers forward by at least 18 inches to 2 feet opens up the sound by miles. "by miles" is that technical speak? :roll: 

But! what would I know?


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 3, 2012)

Ray, it depends on how you did the room treatment..... . If you did no room treatment, then this placement is not the best solution.

As I said in so many threads: Room treatment is much more important than to use the best equioment...... .


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 3, 2012)

whinecellar @ Tue Jan 03 said:


> gsilbers @ Tue Jan 03 said:
> 
> 
> > what Monitor is that (main big one)?
> ...



thanks. 

yes, thats why i was asking cause there are a lot and some have some extra processing or look bad.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 3, 2012)

+1 to what Ray says (unless you're using soffit mounting - the speakers are in the wall - which can work). Also, most people are too close to their NFMs in my opinion - even though they are NFMs. I wouldn't want to be closer than 5' or so.

But that gets back to the argument over whether you want to "eliminate the room." I'm quite adamant that you don't, yet the conventional wisdom is that you do.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 3, 2012)

> As I said in so many threads: Room treatment is much more important than to use the best equioment...... .



And you're still wrong.


----------



## rayinstirling (Jan 3, 2012)

germancomponist @ Tue Jan 03 said:


> Ray, it depends on how you did the room treatment..... . If you did no room treatment, then this placement is not the best solution.
> 
> As I said in so many threads: Room treatment is much more important than to use the best equioment...... .



Gulp!
Well then, I'll never get it right because I've always thought a good pair of ears first before even switching on.


----------



## whinecellar (Jan 3, 2012)

rayinstirling @ Tue Jan 03 said:


> In my humble opinion, all these pics show near field monitors too close the wall behind them
> I found bringing the speakers forward by at least 18 inches to 2 feet opens up the sound by miles.



Agreed, generally. Mine are all over 2 feet from the wall (and my ADAMs are all crossed over around 90 Hz since my sub rig does all the heavy lifting). My room was professionally designed, built & treated too and sounds awesome - everything I've ever done in here has translated wonderfully, even to full-on cinemas. Hey, I'm happy anyway


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 3, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jan 03 said:


> > As I said in so many threads: Room treatment is much more important than to use the best equioment...... .
> 
> 
> 
> And you're still wrong.



In the last weeks I have built my new studio. All what I can tell you: I am sooooo right! 

You will be shocked how good only cheap monitors can sound in a well treated room. I did so many experiments and hated it at least, but it was worth it. o-[][]-o


----------



## rayinstirling (Jan 3, 2012)

germancomponist @ Tue Jan 03 said:


> In the last weeks I have built my new studio. All what I can tell you: I am sooooo right!




I'm happy for you Gunther, but I gave all that effort and money up years ago after buying a $100.00 two bands of cork on paper mat for my Linn Sondek. The scratches sounded terrific but?

Never mind, you enjoy yourself.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 3, 2012)

Gunther, I hope we agree on one thing: lousy equipment sounds lousy and lousy rooms sound lousy.

And another thing: ergonomics are really important when you work at your set-up all day long.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 3, 2012)

Our disagreement is that I say the ears compensate for bad rooms (past a minimum standard) but not bad equipment.


----------



## jleckie (Jan 3, 2012)

Cheap monitors work very well if you have bad ears.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 3, 2012)

jleckie @ Wed Jan 04 said:


> Cheap monitors work very well if you have bad ears.



This, your answer...., tells that you have no idea of what I am talking about.... .


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 3, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jan 03 said:


> Our disagreement is that I say the ears compensate for bad rooms (past a minimum standard) but not bad equipment.



Nick, our ears do, but, especially when it comes to the low end ( I am talking about frequencies from 50 to 200 hz....), our ears are not able to compensate..... . It is not easy to explain in words, especially for me who are a german....., but believe me: There are 1000 worlds between a well treated room and anything else..... . 

o-[][]-o 

Salut my friend!


----------



## wst3 (Jan 3, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jan 03 said:


> <snippity>
> But that gets back to the argument over whether you want to "eliminate the room." I'm quite adamant that you don't, yet the conventional wisdom is that you do.



AHA! I knew we had to have some kind of bizarre communications fault last time around, but couldn't put my finger on it... 

I think the conventional wisdom - at least amongst the studio designers that I know - is that you eliminate the room if, and only if, you can't fix it. If you can get the room to behave, and exactly what well behaved means is not universally agreed upon, then you need plan B, which is near field monitors too close to your ears to try to make the room disappear. It is analogous to a cardiod microphone placed close to the source to minimize the impact of a crappy space.

There is much more to it, of course, and each designer brings their own biases, but no one I know of starts out trying to eliminate the room. Moulton and Newell simply explain it differently, and I guess even between the two of them there are differences of opinion.

As an aside, if the loudspeakers are designed to operate in a soffit then they will always sound better when so mounted. I have a pair of Urei 809s (which of course have their own list of faults) that sound absolutely awesome to me when properly mounted. But, I grew up listening to Altec 604 based systems, so I have an ingrained bias<G>!


----------



## wst3 (Jan 3, 2012)

whinecellar @ Tue Jan 03 said:


> Not sure how helpful it is, but here's the best compromise I could find for my workflow:
> 
> http://www.whinecellarstudio.com/home/tour.html#1
> 
> I wanted all this stuff within comfortable reach, and there are a lot of controllers to contend with. Gets the job done for me and allows both 88 weighted and 61 synth action keys - each has their strengths depending on the part I'm playing...



It looks like a lovely setting for getting some work done!

I have tried at least a gazillion different arrangements of my 61 key synth action and 88 key piano-like action key boards - along with a computer keyboard and mouse, and other requisite controllers, and have not yet found the perfect setup<G>! I tried something similar to your picture for a bit, but gave up. Having seen yours I think I'll give it another try... it just looks comfortable!

Thanks for sharing!


----------



## whinecellar (Jan 3, 2012)

You got it, Bill. Yamaha's P-series digital pianos have always made great composer keyboards because of all that "shelf space." Since that pic was taken I added an Apple Trackpad to the left of the keyboard, so that gives me all of my faves: mouse, trackpad & trackball (I switch often to avoid RSI getting worse).

Anyway, yeah, it all works well and is indeed very comfortable. Now back to my search for the perfect chair


----------



## wst3 (Jan 3, 2012)

whinecellar @ Tue Jan 03 said:


> You got it, Bill. Yamaha's P-series digital pianos have always made great composer keyboards because of all that "shelf space." Since that pic was taken I added an Apple Trackpad to the left of the keyboard, so that gives me all of my faves: mouse, trackpad & trackball (I switch often to avoid RSI getting worse).
> 
> Anyway, yeah, it all works well and is indeed very comfortable. Now back to my search for the perfect chair



I find it interesting that more folks don't regularly switch between a trackball type device and a mouse... I learned that trick years ago when I was programming, and I do believe it has helped me minimize strain.

One of my conundrums is that I am perfectly satisfied with my Roland/Rhodes MK-80 as a piano like keyboard (and yes, I still use the built in Rhodes sounds from time to time<G>!). But I hate the Roland style mod wheel/pitch bend. My favorite 61 note keyboard is my EPS-Classic, I like the pitch bend and mod wheels, the poly aftertouch can come in handy (though my keyboard chops don't really take advantage of it) - but it is so darned large. My other favorite synth-action keyboard is an Oberheim xK, but it too has a spring return mod-wheel, which I don't like. But it is small enough that I can fit it onto of the MK-80 with a small computer keyboard and mouse or trackball. I thought I had solved my mod wheel problems when I dug out my ancient Yamaha MCS-2, but it is awkward to use no matter where I put it.

And I still need to find a spot for the ZeroSL... course I need to buy one first I guess<G>!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 3, 2012)

> I have a pair of Urei 809s (which of course have their own list of faults) that sound absolutely awesome to me when properly mounted.



I have them too (809As)! And don't tell anyone, but I love them to pieces.

Mine aren't soffit-mounted, but I have a flat screen between them, so it's a little bit of the same thing.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 3, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jan 03 said:


> > I have a pair of Urei 809s (which of course have their own list of faults) that sound absolutely awesome to me when properly mounted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You old Rock-and-Roller you!!!

If you ever get the chance, try them in a dog-house... the bottom just fills in nicely - as if they were all that weak at the bottom to start with.

I had to replace the surrounds a couple years ago (does this mean I play them too loud?) and was happily surprised that the kit I bought for around $40 worked really well, and did not change the basic character of the loudspeaker at all.

On the flip side I've rebuilt the stupid cross-overs so many times the boards are about to crumble... turns out Ed Long had a pretty good idea of what he was doing after all. (In fairness I believe Ed was gone when the 809 was released, and I've heard that another engineer, whose name escapes me, either designed the loudspeaker entirely or completed the design. Need to find out!)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 3, 2012)

I think they're JBL - right after they bought UREI.

Touch wood my crossovers haven't had any problems. Mine are the A model. Not sure what the difference is.

I power them with a Hafler 9505 amp, and the combination is fab.


----------



## dinerdog (Jan 3, 2012)

Hey Jim, I wonder if you could tell me which P-Series Yamaha that is. It looks perfect with that space on top, but none of the ones I looked at seem quite like yours. Thanks.

http://usa.yamaha.com/products/musical- ... ode=series


----------



## wst3 (Jan 3, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jan 03 said:


> I think they're JBL - right after they bought UREI.
> 
> Touch wood my crossovers haven't had any problems. Mine are the A model. Not sure what the difference is.
> 
> I power them with a Hafler 9505 amp, and the combination is fab.



OK Now I'm just plain scared... mine are also powered by an older Haffler - can't remember the model, and it has been modified a bit, not the 9505 at least<G>!

Ever hear the Haffler TRM-8 monitors? Those remain my all time favorite, just never had the room to support them. If I had the room tomorrow I might still buy a pair!


----------



## whinecellar (Jan 3, 2012)

dinerdog @ Tue Jan 03 said:


> Hey Jim, I wonder if you could tell me which P-Series Yamaha that is. It looks perfect with that space on top, but none of the ones I looked at seem quite like yours. Thanks.



Sure thing: mine is an old P-300 (circa 1995). All the similar models have been discontinued (P-150, P-200, P-250, CP-300) but you can still find P-250's and CP-300's easily. The P-300 was a sweet spot though because it has a ton of velocity curves and advanced controller features; the v. curves come in really handy since sample libraries all respond differently.

Hope that helps!


----------



## tabulius (Jan 3, 2012)

I've been planning a new studio desk for a long time. I think I'll go for a custom designed desk at some point, because there just isn't a desk that is suitable for my needs. It is expensive, but maybe it is a good investment. Now my shoulders and back are killing me because of bad ergonomics :/ I also should get a new better workchair.

PS. Those who are looking for an option for studio furniture and custom work inside EU, check this: http://www.keoda.com/


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 3, 2012)

> Ever hear the Haffler TRM-8 monitors?



Yeah, they were pretty nice.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 4, 2012)

By the way, Bill:



> you need plan B, which is near field monitors too close to your ears to try to make the room disappear.



That doesn't really work. You can't make the room disappear. But you can get rid of bad stuff (especially excess reverb) pretty easily. I'm also a little uncomfortable with the close-miking analogy when it comes to speakers - although for reasons you probably agree with (human ears and mics have some big differences as well as similarities).

And Gunther, I was going to say that we agree about the need for bass trapping. The ear doesn't compensate for sloppy bass.

My point is just that you can't, say, fix metallic, constrained/boxy-sounding, harsh, boom/sizzle speakers with lousy, distorted amps by treating the room.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 4, 2012)

Sorry to go on and on about this - especially in a thread about ergonomics!


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 4, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jan 04 said:


> By the way, Bill:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




there is a interesting thread at gearslutz Mastering section where engineers where debating a quote from bob katz saying something like nowadays engineers are not listening correctly because they have monitors so close to them so basically is like having big headphones on. instead of having good Main speakers further away. 
interesting read in either side of the debate... and sorry for my paraphrasing. 

I tried pushing my speakers away and there was indeed a difference in my mixes.
so for those who have the space, you should try it or read more about it. 

but also, i believe that you get used to your speakers by comparing other mixes on them and listening to your mixes on different speakers in other studios/venues.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 4, 2012)

found it!


http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much- ... ixing.html

from this quote


I am currious why nearfields cant or shouldnt be used for mastering. Could they be used outside of the nearfield positioning?

Nearfields were originally proposed as a way to deal with large consoles which get in the way of stand-mounted loudspeakers. But as large consoles are disappearing, this justification goes away. Project studios often put nearfields on tables, which cause serious acoustical anomalies such as resonances and comb filtering. Nearfields have often been cited as helping to reduce acoustical problems of bad rooms, but all the other problems they introduce hardly justify their use.

One problem is that nearfield monitoring is like wearing big headphones! The stereo imaging is so wide that it discourages you from making a "big" master that will translate to home systems. The second problem is that the high frequency response of speakers that are to be used as nearfields has to be tailored for such close use, so they won't bite your ear, so not just any speaker can be used as a nearfield. The third problem is that very few of the speakers designed as nearfields have adequate dynamics and low frequency extension (with some exceptions, I've seen engineers use Meyer HD-1s as nearfields, but these can sound overbright when used this close). The fourth problem is that nearfield monitoring exagerrates transients and affects your perception of the relationship of lead and solo versus rhythm. The fifth problem is that nearfield position exagerrates ambience, creating a higher ratio of direct to room sound. So nearfields are not particularly good for anything, either mixing or mastering!

Mixes and masters made on nearfields will have a great deal of trouble translating to other systems. I don't recommend nearfield monitoring for any purpose except in remote truck control rooms with extremely limited space, where they are usually not used for mixing, but to verify that the recording (tracking) is going well.

To answer your question whether speakers designed to be used as nearfields can be used as mid- or farfield speakers, I doubt it. Most speakers which people are using as nearfields have so little headroom or extension that they will sound even worse when placed in the mid or far field! But there are some exceptions, and I find a pair of Genelec 8040s or 8240s make good midfields if not played too loudly.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 4, 2012)

Without reading the thread, the arguments can't really be against Bob's observations about NFMs, just with his conclusion that therefore they're no good for mastering.

I personally like the way you can hear details so clearly and imaging so well - which is why I work on them more than on my big speakers. But my main complaint is exactly what he's saying - I think: small boxes create acoustic compression, which is what I think he means when he says they have limited dynamic range.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 4, 2012)

he says mixing and mastering 

"Mixes and masters made on nearfields will have a great deal of trouble translating to other systems. I don't recommend nearfield monitoring for any purpose except in remote truck control rooms with extremely limited space, where they are usually not used for mixing, but to verify that the recording (tracking) is going well. "



In the thread I think most agree w him. The counter argument is from the maker of barefoot speakers so it's intersting read. Sadly bob did not post there.

I moved my genelecs way back and my mixes changed. 
But my room is not treated proffesionLly so even though it helps it's not as good as it should be. 
Still, intersting test


----------



## rgames (Jan 4, 2012)

And, of course, we all try to work in the acoustic equivalent of a cleanroom while our music is heard in the acoustic equivalent of a trash heap.

It's all different. Trying to judge "better" is mostly pointless. Your room has one set of response characteristics; that's what (mostly) dictates the relative levels, stereo image, transient characteristics, etc. Almost everywhere else is different, often vastly different, so you can spend a hundred grand tweaking your room and everyone else is _still_ going to hear something different.

Here's a thought experiment: let's say your room is perfectly flat. Stereo image is perfect, transient response is perfect. You master a track and get everything sounding just the way you want. It's in A and there's a major rhythmic bass lick that repeats on the A at 110 Hz.

Person A listens to it in a room with a listening location that has a huge hole at 110 HZ. So that person says "Horrible mix! Can't hear the bass!"

Person B listens to it in a room with a listening location that has a huge resonance at 110 Hz. So that person says "Horrible mix! Bass is way too loud!"

So, your pristine monitoring environment has produced a mix that sounds awful for both people.

To complete the thought experiment, replace the A at 110 Hz with all the possible resonances/holes in all possible rooms (an infinite number, by the way, so that's a lot of possibilities!) and you quickly realize the futility of worrying so much about a super-pristine listening environment.

rgames


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 4, 2012)

rgames..

dunno much about your knowledge about audio engineering but usually one of the aspect of mixing and Mastering engineering is to make sure a mix translates well in other mediums. 
and they will have several set of speakers to verify this. so a clean listening environment is very important, even though it might slightly change from one room to another, a mix will sound relatively consistent

so based on your example, a mastering room /mixing room should not have any dips or standing waves . if the consumer does have them then its their problem pretty much..
but we might be spliting hairs here and it varies too much between exprecience, material and setups.


----------



## rgames (Jan 4, 2012)

gsilbers @ Wed Jan 04 said:


> dunno much about your knowledge about audio engineering but usually one of the aspect of mixing and Mastering engineering is to make sure a mix translates well in other mediums.
> and they will have several set of speakers to verify this.


It doesn't matter what my credentials are, the fact is that 95% of the sound the people hear is dictated by the room. So unless you come up with a way to simulate the characteristics of every possible room (which is impossible because that's an infinite number) then spending a lot of time worrying about it is basically pointless. Well, it's not really pointless, but it's religion, not science.

You can easily prove this to yourself: take a look at the frequency response plots for any decent monitors. They're all within about 0.5 dB of each other, right? OK - maybe 1 dB at extreme values. Now take a look at the frequency response when you add the room into the mix - those values can easily vary by 10 - 20 dB or even more. So the room clearly dictates the response (excepting transients, but there's not much difference there). And that's just the frequency response - throw decay times and other parameters in the mix and it's even more a function of the room. And since there are so many different rooms, there's no way you can mix to account for all those differences. Using different sets of monitors is pointless: you're altering a piece of the system that has a tiny effect.

But if you want to talk credentials, here you go: I spent two years working with NASA on a project doing acoustic shaping in zero gravity. Basically, we used acoustic resonances to move bits of material around in zero gravity so that we could create complex surfaces with a non-contact manufacturing technique. So I spent a lot of time dealing with acoustic modes and building systems that use them to create prescribed surfaces. News flash: so long as it was decent quality, the acoustic driver was of almost no consequence to the acoustic response - we wound up using siren drivers for emergency vehicles, about $50 each. The frequency response was not great, but they were powerful! The shape of the enclosure dictated 90% of the performance, the material of the enclosure about another 5 - 8%. The properties of the acoustic driver? Well, it accounted for about 2% of the response.

I'll grant that music places a higher premium on the acoustic drivers but it's still a small piece of the overall system. A monitoring system includes the monitors, the room, and everything in the room. So long as they're not $5 computer speakers, the fact is that the monitors have the smallest effect on the overall response. And since every room is different, there's no way to account for the largest factor that determines how your tracks sound in other locations. So any attempt to quantify one as better than another is basically a religious argument. Different? Yes. But better? Impossible to quantify.

QED 

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 4, 2012)

Richard, I'm afraid there are quite a few misconceptions in there.

95% of what people hear isn't dictated by the room, first of all. A good recording sounds like a good recording in any room that isn't totally insane because our ears compensate for rooms. We've had really good production technology since the 1950s or even before, and it's been proven to work very well in millions of living rooms; until sometime in the late '90s or so everyone grew up listening to and enjoying albums, and most people hear the difference between good and bad recordings and sound systems very easily.

And you don't need to mix for every possible room, you just need to make it sound good. It's useful to have more than one reference, of course, but the idea that every other room that isn't perfectly flat is going to sound wrong is false. You get even farther out there when you start doing Einstein thought experiments about frequency response plots of speakers vs. rooms. For openers that leaves out the time domain.

Speaker preference is subjective, but it's not religion. There are some objective standards.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 4, 2012)

... and the room is the most, first important thing! o/~ 

BTW, good contributions, Richard!


----------



## MacQ (Jan 5, 2012)

Here are those pics as promised earlier in this thread (before it went off the rails). Simple keyboard stand with a little bit of carpentry. Sanded and stained that piece of plywood, and now it sits 25" off the floor, which is plenty of leg room for me, and I'm 6'2". My elbow rests on my Aeron's armrest, and it's quite ergonomic to use both mouse and keyboard controller.

~Stu


----------



## Pochflyboy (Jan 5, 2012)

i am with Nick on this one. The monitors are the most important followed closely by where you place them in the room (center up if you can!) and positioning from the listener (equilateral triangle). Thats why this goes hand-in-hand with this discussion so well; because the ergonomics of the studio need to be designed around the listeners position. Then lastly accommodate for the bass issues. Thats what I did in my studio and it has made all the difference.


----------



## Pochflyboy (Jan 5, 2012)

MacQ @ Thu Jan 05 said:


> Here are those pics as promised earlier in this thread (before it went off the rails).



Well where you have placed your controller would not work well for me at all... Especially for playing in fast piano or something like that... I would never get it in right HAHA!


And to note I don't think discussing the acoustic picture of a studio or the difference in treatment vs. positioning is having the thread go "off the rails" because by its very nature it is all about how we are accommodating sound to the human anatomy and that by nature is exactly what ergonomics is. Its important because where you sit is where you hear and this changes by where you move and how you set EVERYTHING up.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 5, 2012)

Gunther, then why not mix on a clock radio in a great room?


----------



## dinerdog (Jan 5, 2012)

Because not everyone has a clock radio? Ha

Seriously, great mixes sound great most places regardless of room. Listen to some Trevor Horn or dare I say it, Hans Zimmer. Unless your in a totally empty room, I don't think you hear much of the room unless it's atrociously bad for some reason.


----------



## rgames (Jan 5, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jan 05 said:


> Gunther, then why not mix on a clock radio in a great room?


Exactly!

A lot of people are going to hear your tracks on a clock radio in a cube-ish room. So why not optimize your tracks to sound great on a clock radio in a cube-ish room?

The approach is as valid as any other!

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 5, 2012)

Then go right ahead, Richard.

Your music will sound like ass, of course, but to each his own.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 5, 2012)

well, i think there is a middle ground. 
rgames point is valid and we might be splitting hairs here or minor miscomunication. 

if an engineer mixes in a room that makes the bass louder then he will EQ out more the bass which would mean that in any other room the bass will sound thin. 

but if he mixes in a room that its professionally treated then his judgement will be more "clean"and its mixes will translate more appropiate in other rooms. 

if a listener/consumer then listens in a room that makes the bass loud (or any other issue) then its not as a big of issue as different consumers will have different setups and the better the setup the more similar the mix is going to be to what the engineers initial intent was. 
there are a lot of audiophiles out there that do have expensive setups. 
so they might miss things like some standing waves or wierd resonances but a leveled mix that you can listen to things clearly will still be there. 

and problems like this happens all the time with mixing dance music because 
DJs play in large venues with bass hyped up that when an engineer goes to a studio to mix they want that huge bass , then they are surprised its way to big and muffles everything else. 

or in the film world.. the whole idea of THX was for all theatres have a similar setup so mixes will translate well and not have a movie sound different on every theatres .

so even though i undewrstands rgames point, imo it might be too focused on details. 

also, and dunno if this is related but if you learn how to mix with your speakers in a specific room then you know how it will translate in other systems.. still the better the room and speakers the better a mix imo.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 5, 2012)

rgames @ Thu Jan 05 said:


> Here's a thought experiment: let's say your room is perfectly flat. Stereo image is perfect, transient response is perfect. You master a track and get everything sounding just the way you want. It's in A and there's a major rhythmic bass lick that repeats on the A at 110 Hz.
> 
> Person A listens to it in a room with a listening location that has a huge hole at 110 HZ. So that person says "Horrible mix! Can't hear the bass!"
> 
> ...



Still this mix will be the best compromise for the average of both.

Explanation: The frequency response of an untreated room goes like +/- 20 dB. Now if you mix in an untreated room and listen in another untreated room of different dimensions then their respective dips and boosts will be at different frequencies and therefore the resulting error will be like +/- 40 dB (!). The neutral mix listened to in a non-neutral room will at least stay in the bracket of +/- 20 dB.

Nick is also right: Our ear compensates a lot of the room response. Therefore frequency transmission is only one part of it, actually even more important is an even decay time that does not vary too much with frequency.


----------



## BlueStar (Jan 5, 2012)

Hi MacQ,

thanks for another possibility. I was thinking today about a solution like this
and will give it a try.

BTW. Thanks for all the studio photos of everyone. I'm still learning
from every possible option I've seen here. To get my final solution
will take a while. I'm still happy about every keyboard placing idea
and I'm happy that many people are discussing different solutions. Great, Thanks :D


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 8, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jan 05 said:


> Gunther, then why not mix on a clock radio in a great room?



When I mix radio spots, I always do this.  :-=

Nick, 

after we did so many experimets, I am sure that many many people never have listend in a well treated room! As I said earlier: 10000 worlds different! Especially in the low end! 
o-[][]-o


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 8, 2012)

But that's not the argument. Of course the room makes a big difference.

The dispute is over whether one should invest in great monitors to use in a room that isn't "treated." Yes. Absolutely - get the best monitors you can.

Usually what happens here is that someone asks about speakers, and then someone tells them to invest half their budget in unspecified "room treatment." And that is so stupid as to be annoying.  It's like someone asking what gym to join and being told to spend half their budget on healthcare.

The vast majority of musicians work without any problem in standard rooms, and they will be ill-served by ill monitors. It takes surprisingly little to bring a room up to a serviceable level, and often you don't have to spend much money to do that.

And it's simply not true that your mixes will automatically contain the inverse curve of your room response. The biggest danger is that they'll have too much overly bright reverb if you stick arbitrary junk up on your walls.

Or worse: you have pops and thuds because your NFMs don't respond below 60Hz.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 8, 2012)

Nick brings up a couple really important points...

first, if the monitors are not up to the task then the rest really doesn't matter. You have to hear what's going on in the tracks, and while a really bad room can hamper that, you don't need really bad monitors to get the same effect, medium lousy will do the trick.

second, and maybe even more important - that recommendation for unspecified room treatments really is dumb, and sadly I've made that mistake more than once. It's easy to assume that everyone has the knowledge and the test equipment, let alone the experience, necessary to treat a room.

I think the constant marketing barrage that all you need is this box of parts - or worse this software - to fix a room is a real problem.

The space in which one monitors is important. It is a LOT easier to mix in a room that behaves well. But it is a lot harder to mix in a room that behaves well with inadequate monitors than it is to mix in a typical room with really good monitors. You still have to do your homework of course - you need to make sure that your ears and the monitors are placed well.

Oh, and I thought everyone checked their mixes on crappy little 4" loudspeakers - or worse<G>!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 8, 2012)

We all agree about one thing: a great room + great monitors beats either one alone. 

About 4" speakers (or the clock radio I mentioned): checking a mix is very different from mixing on those speakers. You need to hear what's going on to a certain standard before it makes sense to me. The Auratones you'd find in every studio were good little speakers - they were just small.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 8, 2012)

Also, +1 to the marketing barrage. I actually think there are companies that have done their own products a disservice by selling them as cures for problems they don't solve.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 8, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Jan 08 said:


> Also, +1 to the marketing barrage. I actually think there are companies that have done their own products a disservice by selling them as cures for problems they don't solve.



Truer words were never spoken! And I really don't want to see any of those companies suffer unnecessarily, but it would be cool to see people wake up to the fact that there is no such thing as a free lunch!


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 11, 2012)

To be understood right, I said: Not so good speakers can sound better in a well treatet romm than visa versa.... . 

Sure, a well treatet room + best monitors, + a best amp and + best da-converters will let you get the best results. No question about this. 

What I also have found out is never anymore to use an equalizer to adjust the mistakes from the room. It sucks in many ways.


----------



## rayinstirling (Jan 11, 2012)

germancomponist @ Wed Jan 11 said:


> To be understood right, I said: Not so good speakers can sound better in a well treatet romm than visa versa.... .
> 
> Sure, a well treatet room + best monitors, + a best amp and + best da-converters will let you get the best results. No question about this.
> 
> What I also have found out is never anymore to use an equalizer to adjust the mistakes from the room. It sucks in many ways.



Hey! Gunther,

What are you doing here, when you have all that work to do fixing all your bad mixes done before the acoustic treatment? :lol:


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 11, 2012)

rayinstirling @ Wed Jan 11 said:


> Hey! Gunther,
> 
> What are you doing here, when you have all that work to do fixing all your bad mixes done before the acoustic treatment? :lol:



Smile, but true: When I listen to some mixes I now think: "Huh........." 

BTW: I wish you a great new year, Ray! o-[][]-o


----------



## rayinstirling (Jan 11, 2012)

germancomponist @ Wed Jan 11 said:


> rayinstirling @ Wed Jan 11 said:
> 
> 
> > Hey! Gunther,
> ...



Have a great 2012 yourself Gunther o-[][]-o


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 11, 2012)

> Not so good speakers can sound better in a well treatet romm than visa versa



That just means you need to fix the totally hideous problems in your room.

Happy New Year to both of you.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 11, 2012)

Nick, to be honest: I hate room treatment!!!!! But it is necessary! 

Happy New Year!


----------

