What's new

Studio room treatment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, I hope the OP will find the right resources and start to plan their build soon!
 
Sometimes pseudo-designed spaces are even worse than if you put a few panels on the walls. Yes, I have seen this happen as well!

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

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

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

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

Anyone sitting in the rear absolutely does not hear what you are hearing at the mixing position. Such rooms are a failure to me.
...
This is one of the reasons why I like Non-Envrionment rooms. I can literally walk across the room and almost nothing changes, except direction of course.

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

The same guy is always posting about that too. What an ass he is.
We're talking about having a couch at the back of the room. I think sitting a certain distance away from the wall (not the edge of the treatment but the actual hard wall) is generally better than sitting directly in front of it. If you use thinner treatment, then I'd still try spacing out more as if you had 5' of depth taken up by treatment. If you're sitting in the middle of the room then you're as far away as possible from the side walls.
 
Tanuj Tiku speaks the truth out! Yeah, I know that many people do not like the truth..... . :)

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

But I will say that you don't need to do a whole lot to make 95% of all rooms workable for a composer. Get rid of excess reverb and probably bass with heavy-duty absorbent material at the front of the room, add diffusors if you're rich, and off you go.
 
That's not necessarily true. Yes, a porous absorber needs to be that deep to be a "bass trap" and companies selling panels with just a porous absorber aren't bass traps but other technologies require much less space. You can get a bass trap tuned to 40Hz at less than 1' deep and it'll probably be more effective than any porous absorber 5' deep.
And the magic word is...

Tuned!

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

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

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

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

There is an exception, and I have no idea how it works, but Art Noxon's (ASC) Tube Traps are remarkably effective. Actually I have an idea about why they work, but again, there is a trade-off, you have to place them in the room. (The Half Traps work well too, but in reality not significantly better than any other boundary trap, and they take up a lot of space IN the room as opposed to beyond the boundary. On the plus side, when used properly, they provide some diffusion too.
 
Nothing new. Helmholtz lived 1821 - 1894. <snip>
You can go a lot further back than Helmholtz<G>!

I don't understand how there can be so much misinformation on studio acoustics. I'm still struggling to find good resources and proper explanations to getting world class rooms as opposed to using "bass traps" which don't go lower than 100Hz and then claiming that it's a great approach. It's not like this is anything new. Research has been done on this for over 50 years. Just look at the BBC papers. Those provide better info than what most acoustic panel companies post on their websites. Search for how to build a bass trap on YouTube and probably 1/100 videos will actually be for a real bass trap.

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

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

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

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

But not everyone wants to do that stuff, and they should hire someone that knows the topic. Again, time vs money, an exercise in optimization! And stay away from YouTube as a source of scientific information if you don't have the background to spot the phonies.
 
My opinion is that you cannot simply learn about quantum mechanics in 6 months by reading some books and start doing experiments on quantum entanglement.

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

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

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

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

I've never quite understood why anyone would want to read technical papers that were not peer reviewed. The AES (no, that does not stand for Almost Extinct Society] library is still the best place to find good information on any topic related to audio. The Acoustical Society of America would be a close second, but the majority of their papers deal with topics that are not directly related to music. Pity!
 
It is true, I can build a bass trap that will be extremely effective in very little space if I am trying to trap a single frequency - but in the real world you are almost never trying to trap a single frequency. It just does not work that way.
There are other approaches which save a lot more space than just porous absorbers which aren't tuned. Or rather are tuned but to a very broad range. Essentially diaphragmatic absorbers but there are various different kinds. I'm very interested in trying to build some VPR panels. I definitely wouldn't try to design a room around tuned traps. I almost made that mistake a few years ago when redesigning my room but thankfully someone helped me understand things some more.

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

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

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

At the same time, some studio designers have a certain surface area coverage of the room for treatment that they aim for like 18% and they think that's all you need. Even a lot of "pro" studios have nothing but a single layer of 703 all around (there are so many things wrong with that...).
 
Last edited:
There is an exception, and I have no idea how it works, but Art Noxon's (ASC) Tube Traps are remarkably effective.

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

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

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

https://www.asc-studio-acoustics.com/products/mix-station/
 
At one point I had I think four Helmholtz resonator bass traps here. They were different sizes to accommodate different freqs, plus they had some stuffing to increase their frequency range. But I didn't need them with the ASC stuff.
 
I know some guy who keeps posting exactly that every time he reads one of these threads here.



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem is the bad information and people spending lots of money on something that 'looks' like a studio but does not 'sound' like a studio!
 
What I've had trouble understanding isn't how the various technologies work or the various general approaches around. It's how much is actually needed.
I think you are mixing the science and the art, and while both play a very important role, they are not "mix-able".

You can look at the absorption curves of various bass traps but how do you know just how many you need? At what point is it enough?
For a small, critical listening space that is almost entirely a matter of personal taste. Almost.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is not a requirement to have (and understand) TEF to design (treat actually) a room, but I'd wager there is still no better way.
 
I disagree with that last comment - there is nothing wrong with using nothing but absorption to treat a room. It wouldn't be my cup of tea, but if the work translates well to the rest of the world then it is appropriate.
Nothing but a single 2" layer of 703? I wouldn't really call that "absorption." No low end control whatsoever.

TEF is a dog to learn! I've been using it, at the feet of the masters, since the mid 1980s, I've had my own license for 2 or 3 years now. Every time I use it I learn something new. It is as fascinating as it is time wasting (spending?). TEF is what let these folks look at the audio in the room to figure out what was happening, and how it could be managed.
One of the studio designers who I work with and have learned a lot from was using an ancient program (I don't know the name) which required a physical serial port key so he had a 20+ year old computer to use it. Apparently it did things that nothing nowadays does but the developer refused to update the licensing system. The computer recently died so I think he's just using REW now but he doesn't really measure while designing rooms.
 
I currently work in a 4 foot by 5 foot cupboard. Yes, it means I can only use headphones. I'll be moving house soon and getting into a proper sized room dedicated to this.

So I was naturally interested in this thread. Now, I am the most confused person in the world, so thanks to everyone, I think I'll just stay in my cupboard rather than try to sort out a room that sounds decent.
 
Nothing but a single 2" layer of 703? I wouldn't really call that "absorption." No low end control whatsoever.
That depends on how you use it - you can get absorption in lower octaves with 703, but it requires physical space - back to trade-offs<G>!

One of the studio designers who I work with and have learned a lot from was using an ancient program (I don't know the name) which required a physical serial port key so he had a 20+ year old computer to use it. Apparently it did things that nothing nowadays does but the developer refused to update the licensing system. The computer recently died so I think he's just using REW now but he doesn't really measure while designing rooms.
There are a great many orphaned programs out there for acoustical measurement and modeling. It is a tiny market, and proved to be a less than sustainable business model for software alone. TEF uses a dongle, and that dongle was, for a long time, a measurement platform that cost upwards of $10K. The most recent dongle is a specialized USB audio interface, still ain't cheap!

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