how can I replicate natural comb filtering?

[Key]

Eh I promise it was actually a term of endearment.

You are thinking too much in marketing terms. What is the real difference between hi fi and studio monitors when it comes down to it? The active amps? Linkwitz has got em. Where are people going to play your CD? In a treated room? Unlikely. So why not just use the reference you expect? Why all the weird push pulling? Really I am crapping the thread at this point. But look through and see that I was originally trying to steer it back on track. I clicked on it with the intent to post the VST and was a little shocked at the replies that you need to treat your room. Why?!?!?! Did the mixer report any problems mixing? He wanted a specific sound on the recording not to change his mixing environment.

I said that the Linkwitz thing is the closest to a good answer I have seen. I did not say it was the end of all debate or room problems. I think if you were willing to give me a little bit of the benefit instead of constantly trying to put me down you might see that I make some sense.

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by Key

You are thinking too much in marketing terms.

No, physics such as acoustics.

What is the real difference between hi fi and studio monitors when it comes down to it?

Have to give you that one, hardly any even though some claim the opposite.

The active amps?

Are there passive amps? ;-)

Where are people going to play your CD? In a treated room? Unlikely. So why not just use the reference you expect?

Because a random listeners room is not a reference. Since all rooms are different you need a neutral mixing and mastering set up so that no errors are doubled up at the user end.

I said that the Linkwitz thing is the closest to a good answer I have seen.

SL has tons of knowledge but still leave room for subjectivities (as it should be) and there are very knowledgeable people that do not agree with some of his points.


/Peter

[Key]

Audioop I really think you need to rethink the idea of a reference room.

Would you consider the in room response being flat to be more important than the anechoic response? I would consider the anechoic to be much more important.

This is not an easy thing to see at first and of course my first instinct was to correct the room response. Now after a bit of experimentation and experience I think this is a flawed approach to the problem.

[jayfrigo]

Before I close the thread, I think nearly everyone has missed the point of the original poster's question. It was not "how do I improve my room." His point was that he likes the way the bass build up happens as he approaches the rear boundary better than he does when he adds EQ and listens at mix position, or takes the EQ'd mix elsewhere. He's wondering if there's a way to get that sound on his mix since a plain old EQ boost isn't doing it for him.

It's not actually comb filtering he's looking for, but it is probably a somewhat complex interaction of some frequencies diminishing while a great many others broadly increase. I'd suggest trying to cut some muddy frequencies (you'll have to experiment a bit to find out which area cleans up the stuff you object to), and then do a very broad peaking boost on the bass. Don't use a shelf, but rather a wide peaking filter (bell, parametric, or whatever you wish to call it). That may get you closer to the sound you're after.

As for the room issue, yes, that should really be taken care of too. Good luck!

[Ethan Winer]

I'm too busy to get sucked deeper into this thread. I've already made plenty of coherent points backed up with facts and proof in the form of graphs. But I will address this:

Originally Posted by Key

I never said you could not hear a wavelength that was longer than the listening position.

Well, you did say that more or less:

"If the wave length is 30ft long and your room dimensions are
smaller than that what makes you think you can accurately reproduce
that wavelength in your room?"

I was just trying to say that to me this effect of bass getting larger in random spots in a room or further than the listening position does not mean he is actually having problems in the listening position to the point he needs room treatment.

That's why I posted those graphs, all of which were taken in the listening position. Have you ever measured the response and ringing in your own home studio, or whatever room you use to practice your craft? If not, I urge you to do that ASAP, then please post a waterfall graph here. That's the sort of proof that wins an argument every time!

You guys just keep assuming I don't understand acoustics but that is not what I am saying. I am saying that they are not as important as you think they are.

Well, everything is important. When the goal is to have the best sound possible, sensible people will attack the weakest link first. Loudspeakers have very high distortion and poor frequency response compared to power amplifiers, and most rooms have an even worse response. So if we can all agree that it's important to hear what's "on tape" accurately, that puts the room at the top of the list, right next to loudspeakers.

Look Mr. Key, it's clear to me you're not trying to make trouble just to make trouble. But you seem to ignore many valid points some of us have made. If you prefer to work in an untreated room, and feel you get better results, that's fine with me. But to put that forth as The Truth that everyone else should follow seems misguided IMO.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by jayfrigo

I think nearly everyone has missed the point of the original poster's question. It was not "how do I improve my room." His point was that he likes the way the bass build up happens as he approaches the rear boundary better than he does when he adds EQ and listens at mix position, or takes the EQ'd mix elsewhere. He's wondering if there's a way to get that sound on his mix since a plain old EQ boost isn't doing it for him.

Yes - the way to get that sound (not in the mix but as he hears the mix) is to treat his room with bass traps. As I know you understand, one or more deep nulls at the mix position is very common in small rooms. It's the nulls that make the bass sound thin to him, and when he moves toward the back wall those nulls shift higher in frequency. In fact, that is comb filtering.

--Ethan

[jayfrigo]

The "comb" of course refers to the multiple "peaks and valleys" that appear (visually suggesting the teeth of a comb), and if he wants to approximate the sound he's hearing in the back of the room in his mix, not his room (separate point which he also should address), I don't think it's practical or advisable for him to actually try to recreate comb filtering. That was my point.