Why linear room treatment?

[Bionic_Beats]

A bit of a provocative title but what I want to question is: why should I make my mixing room so special if the average consumer listens usually in a very standard room?

I'm right now treating my room and I am definitely hearing a big difference. I'm at a stage where I am thinking about, I could do more especially in the bass range, but on the other hand, shouldn't I try to replicate a more standard listening room than a super linear room?

Of course the problem then is, what is a standard room? But the patterns of untreated rooms seem to me kind of similar. Or am I completely wrong here?

Thanks for opinions!

[jsipich]

Short answer: The better you can hear the mistakes and correct them - the better they will sound to an "end user" on their home systems. Every user has a different setup depending on how they like to listen to music. While you may think that it is best to emulate the end system - you will never get a good result simply because you are tailoring the mix to your system - not making a "baseline" that translates well on other systems depending on how that particular person has their audio playback device setup, etc.

It's a night/day difference going from a studio to the car, home system, etc. Try mixing on a "standard" system then play that back in your car, home stereo, etc - do the same mix proper and note the difference it makes.

[Torea]

Originally Posted by jsipich

Short answer: The better you can hear the mistakes and correct them - the better they will sound to an "end user" on their home systems. Every user has a different setup depending on how they like to listen to music. While you may think that it is best to emulate the end system - you will never get a good result simply because you are tailoring the mix to your system - not making a "baseline" that translates well on other systems depending on how that particular person has their audio playback device setup, etc.

This ^ says it all. I think the idea of creating exceptional mixing spaces is so that no matter where the mix is played, it will sound great, or at least pretty good. Translatable.

[Bionic_Beats]

Ok, I understand but the point is: are rooms really so different that you can't find a common denominator? I try to illustrate it with an example:

Let's assume we have 3 different rooms. To keep it simple we only have 1 problem (I know in reality we have many more but it is about the matter of principle)

Room A: 10db boost at 150hz
Room B: 10db boost at 120hz
Room C: 10db boost at 100hz

Scenario 1: (mix is done in an untreated mixing booth similar to Room B): my mix would have a cut at 120hz. Thus, the mix would sound pretty good in room B but also not too bad in room A and C, wouldn't it?

Scenario 2 (treated linear mixing booth): my mix would be linear but if listened to in room A, B or C, I would hear a boost in the respective frequency ranges and the result would sound worse than in scenario 1.

So, the real problem comes in if we also have VERY different rooms like for example this:

Room E: 10db cut at 150hz

In such a scenario my mix done in room B would sound terrible in this room E, but still ok, if done in a linear mixing booth.

So according to your answers, reality looks like we frequently have rooms like E and therefore, we need linear mixing booths. My thought was, that we usually only have rooms like A, B, C and very rarely room that are completely different like i.e. E and thus mixing in a "standard room" like B would bring best results.

[jhbrandt]

Bionic,

The answer to your question is basic.

You should study what has already been done in this field.
Master Handbook of Acoustics is a good start.

Cheers,
John

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by Bionic_Beats

why should I make my mixing room so special if the average consumer listens usually in a very standard room?

This quote is from my Acoustics FAQ:

Originally Posted by Acoustics FAQ

You may ask why you need acoustic treatment at all, since few people listening to your music will be in a room that is acoustically treated. The reason is simple: All rooms sound differently, both in their amount of liveness and their frequency response. If you create a mix that sounds good in your room, which has its own particular frequency response, it is likely to sound very different in other rooms. For example, if your room has a severe lack of deep bass, your mixes will probably contain too much bass as you incorrectly compensate based on what you are hearing. And if someone else plays your music in a room that has too much deep bass, the error will be exaggerated, and they will hear way too much deep bass. Therefore, the only practical solution is to make your room as accurate as possible so any variation others experience is due solely to the response of their room.

--Ethan

________________
The Acoustic Treatment Experts

[Bionic_Beats]

Thanks for the answers. I accept it but still don't really get it, sorry

I totally understand that a room has its influence etc. pp. but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about statistics. And I am talking about the probability that a linear mixing room is more likely very different to an average listening room than an untreated mixing room.

Let's assume we have a statistic that 80% of music consumers listen to music in their living rooms. Secondly, 70% of living rooms have about the same size, shape and characteristics. Now given these facts, mixing in such a room would generate great mixes for these people (a majority). Now, mixing in a linear room would generate a better mix for the rest of the people (which is however a minority) but at the cost of having an inferior mix for the majority.

The argument a mix can sound excellent everywhere can't work. It always is a compromise between: a mix sounds ok in a lot of rooms and a mix sounds very good in some rooms but quite bad in others. Now if these "some rooms" occur very frequently in reality, we should consider this fact, imho.

Just to put it into perspective, I am treating my mixing room and I am not questioning it in general. But I am thinking about, how linear, how perfect should it be, if most listening rooms are far from being that perfect. Especially, if I often hear that most untreated rooms have common problems that are kind of similar.

[jhbrandt]

You can change a room by a few inches and have a completely different set of problems.

No, the average room is just that; Average.

Mixing in a properly designed/treated room would generate a better mix for ANYONE.

A good system in a car is one of the 'best real world' tests for how a mix translates. There is no flutter echo. No modal issues. And other than some symmetry issues, it is fairly representative of the mix. Not to mention that you can A/B with the Radio...

But we don't MIX in a car.

A digital graphic artist will use the most accurate, high definition monitor available to do his work so that the print and subsequent viewing of his work on any display will show the most accurate representation of his work.

It's really quite simple.

Cheers,
John

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by Bionic_Beats

I totally understand that a room has its influence etc. pp. but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about statistics. And I am talking about the probability that a linear mixing room is more likely very different to an average listening room than an untreated mixing room.

People are used to the colored sound of their own room. If your room is colored too it can make your mixes sound better or worse in those other rooms. You have no way to know which direction it will go. So the only way to get a "statistical" average of good sound elsewhere is for your own room to be flat. It doesn't matter if other people's rooms are flat or not. You need to minimize the damage caused by peaks and nulls in your own room that influence your mixes.

Also, larger untreated rooms don't always have the peaks and deep nulls that occur in smaller rooms. So you can't assume everyone who hears your mixes has a room that's very different from a "good" room. A large living room in a rich guy's house may have excess ambience, which he's also used to, but the room won't necessarily suffer from a badly non-flat LF response.

--Ethan

[Bionic_Beats]

All right, thanks to all!

I file it as problem solved. As far as I understood it, two rooms can be extremely different in their frequency responses even if their measurements are quite similar. Thus, a linear mixing room is the best compromise.

However, it would be an interesting research project, analysing room frequency response diagrams of a statistical meaningful number of living rooms and look for recurring patterns ...

BTW: great video/talk about audio myths, Ethan !!

[avare]

Originally Posted by Bionic_Beats

However, it would be an interesting research project, analysing room frequency response diagrams of a statistical meaningful number of living rooms and look for recurring patterns

BBC has done it. The conclusion? A flat response with a rising low end best represents the average room.

Andre

[atma]

what? the average end-user listening room has a flat response?

[technocolour v2]

Originally Posted by atma

what? the average end-user listening room has a flat response?

The "average" room probably doesn't exist, just like how the "average" family has 2.4 children.

[andrebrito]

I prefer rooms with a bit more energy at the bass and slight decay at higher frequencies, within of course acceptable limits

[avare]

Originally Posted by technocolour v2

just like how the "average" family has 2.4 children.

Or the average human being has one testicle and one ovary.

Definitiely not average,
Andre