One size fits all?

[The Vulture]

The more I learn about acoustics the more I start to grasp how complex it is.
Often when advice is given about treatment it is very simplified and examples of room setups are given.
I am not trying to discard general guidelines to treatment but is it sometimes being to dumbed down?

I suspect that many believe that if they just buy some bass traps, treat first reflection points and build a cloud or two, the room just goes "flat".

In recording the "rule" is crap in, crap out.
Are people expecting to much from small square rooms?

Just some thoughts.

[Glenn Kuras]

Acoustics can get pretty deep, but people have to start with the basics or they will never "get it". I have a feeling you started with the basics and have learned from there.
I take my hat off to people like Ethan Winer for simplifying things, which in the end got A LOT of people interested in the subject. It is very common that our own customers start with the basics and then move on to more complex set up. Nothing wrong with that IMO. Just like recording, most people don't start off with a 100K set up.

I suspect that many believe that if they just buy some bass traps, treat first reflection points and build a cloud or two, the room just goes "flat".

Honestly a month does not go by that someone calls me, feeling totally ripped off because they hired some over priced designer that promised the moon and gave them very little.

[darkbuddha]

As a guy who's just doing the basics, I resemble those remarks. That said, what else is a newbie DIY'er on a budget to do? Based on conventional wisdom, we do the basics looking to get the most return for our investment of time, effort, and money, and what we get is hopefully something significantly improved over where we started. Without the experience, wisdom, insight, and knowledge of a professional acoustic engineer/designer, our options are limited to what we can glean and grasp. If there's a better way, I know I'd be interested in hearing it.

Now are people expecting too much from home studios? It depends on what their expectations are at all; in fact, because there is no alternative, their expectations may be irrelevant. But if the expectation is simply to have a space to record/mix/produce and make music (and maybe even with pretty decent production quality), then I think people aren't expecting too much. If they're able to exceed that, BONUS!

[darkbuddha]

BTW, perhaps a better question to ask is: Do folks necessarily need better than a simply treated home studio? Goodness knows there's plenty of crap music and production that have come out of well treated, acoustically brilliant high-end studios too.

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by The Vulture

I am not trying to discard general guidelines to treatment but is it sometimes being to dumbed down? I suspect that many believe that if they just buy some bass traps, treat first reflection points and build a cloud or two, the room just goes "flat".

"Some" bass traps isn't enough, but having a lot of bass traps plus reflection absorbers helps a lot. That alone, with little further effort, will get you 90+ percent of the way there. Yes, the deepest theoretical aspects of acoustics is complex and involves physics and heavy math. But treating a room effectively is vastly simpler.

And thanks for the plug Glenn.

--Ethan

The Acoustic Treatment Experts

[Glenn Kuras]

Originally Posted by darkbuddha

BTW, perhaps a better question to ask is: Do folks necessarily need better than a simply treated home studio? Goodness knows there's plenty of crap music and production that have come out of well treated, acoustically brilliant high-end studios too.

I think you can get it to a point to where the music translates well, which is truly the goal in the end.. Need is kind of a strange way to say it. Yes you NEED it but................................ If you called me and said you had 5K plus to treat a 13x17x8 foot room you would get a much different layout then if you called and said you have $800 to spend. Can you start to gain control with $800? Sure, but most people understand they are not going to get things perfect.
I stayed with a friend of mine in TX a couple months ago who had this $1500 coffee maker and must say the coffee tasted OUTSTANDING. Can I afford a $1500 coffee maker? HELL NO, but I do have a $250 coffee maker that does not make it as well, but it sure taste pretty good to me!! My point is there is always a better way, but if you can't afford it (or don't have the knowledge, skill level and so on) then get what works. Just make sure it really does work (like actually makes coffee )

[Glenn Kuras]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

"Some" bass traps isn't enough, but having a lot of bass traps plus reflection absorbers helps a lot. That alone, with little further effort, will get you 90+ percent of the way there. Yes, the deepest theoretical aspects of acoustics is complex and involves physics and heavy math. But treating a room effectively is vastly simpler.

And thanks for the plug Glenn.

--Ethan

[/url][/b]

As a company we have been spreading the word for over 7 years which I know it has helped, but you are like the Ron Paul (love him or hate him) of the acoustic world.

[Ethan Winer]

Oh geez, I have a basic percolator (not drip) and it makes perfect coffee.

--Ethan

[Glenn Kuras]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

Oh geez, I have a basic percolator (not drip) and it makes perfect coffee.

--Ethan

I smell a blind test coming on!!

edit:Honestly nothing beats my french press, but to lazy in the morning to mess with it.

[John White]

Originally Posted by darkbuddha

BTW, perhaps a better question to ask is: Do folks necessarily need better than a simply treated home studio? Goodness knows there's plenty of crap music and production that have come out of well treated, acoustically brilliant high-end studios too.

Seems important to note that many of these so-called "crap productions" is probably a matter of choice for the most part. However, in a poorly treated environment we are just shooting in the dark.

There does seem to be an increasing number of quality "bedroom" recordings, but that is most likely just a result of the odds due to the growing field of independent productions.

So, even though many could do well in a "simply treated home studio", this still requires lots of time, knowledge and money. Or just more money.

[groveller]

I think simplifying the details is fine. My problem is the opposite... I try to find all the details, read all the info, read the info which explains that info, etc. to make sure I can make an informed decision (plus I still get a rush from realising I understand something new). I learn a lot along the way, some of it accurate, some probably not. Some of it I'm surely misunderstanding. After a week or so my brain will shut down, and I'll put it all off for a couple more months while I recover from acoustics poisoning.

I probably don't need all the details. I probably don't require a complex system. I'm not even sure my work warrants a space I could call a studio with a straight face. I certainly don't need to work out all the details myself. But with all the information out there, it seems such a shame not to make use of it. But I guess that's more my malfunction than any problem with the information available.

[John White]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

"Some" bass traps isn't enough, but having a lot of bass traps plus reflection absorbers helps a lot. That alone, with little further effort, will get you 90+ percent of the way there. Yes, the deepest theoretical aspects of acoustics is complex and involves physics and heavy math. But treating a room effectively is vastly simpler.

Welcome back to the forum. Thanks as always for your pragmatic and practical approach. Whether it will get one 90% of the way there or just most, people implementing general advice as per the OP should hear dramatic differences.

I can't begin to know what people's "expectations" are from their "small square rooms", but one has to start somewhere. Then it's a matter of how far down the rabbit hole you go.

[The Vulture]

Acoustically treating home studios is a fairly new trend.
Just a few years ago it was not that common.
Ethan has raised a lot off awareness regarding this and deserves a lot off respect for that.

But is it unreasonable to say that giving advice without room measurements is to some extent gambling?
To try to solve a problem without knowing the solution is in some ways strange.
I do not in any way have any agenda here.
Just raising some questions.

Peace

[Glenn Kuras]

But is it unreasonable to say that giving advice without room measurements is to some extent gambling?

You are going to have nulls, peaking, ringing and so on though out the low end and to treat that with broad band will cover a lot of it anyway. If you start to get into something tuned then yes you would be wise to test the room. In fact you are wise to test even with broad band to get the best set up (mix spot) and know how well the treatment is working.
But to say you have to test the room before hand is not totally right (or wrong). If you can now mix better (mixes translate better) then you are 300% better off.

[darkbuddha]

Originally Posted by groveller

I probably don't need all the details. I probably don't require a complex system. I'm not even sure my work warrants a space I could call a studio with a straight face.

Forgive me using you as an example, but this is what I was talking about in terms of "need". Lots and lots of folks just need an acoustically manageable space to do what they want to do... something better than their bathroom as a vocal booth, or better than their garage for mixing/producing, etc. And anyone that has done (their) time in a "real" studio knows you "learn" that environment and what to expect from it and what it will give you no matter how "perfect" it may be, especially since no studio translates exactly the same as another (though the great ones seem to do it much much much better).

To be clear, I am not disregarding the value of truly well designed/engineered acoustically treated space. It would be a huge privilege to have access to such a space (again), but I've got to live with what I've got and do my darn'dest to make the best of it.

BTW...

Originally Posted by The Vulture

Acoustically treating home studios is a fairly new trend.
Just a few years ago it was not that common.

I can vouch for that. Going back to the late mid-'90s, lots of my friends had home studios, and our version of "acoustic treatment" consisted of hand-me-down Sonex, Auralex, and those foam mattress pads. A bit here, a bit there, cover that wall... so naive. Ironically, we still turned out some pretty decent production out of those studios.


One last comment, this is a board called GearSlutz... by nature, many of us go overboard with the accumulation of gear. Well, years ago I came to the realization that gear wasn't making my music better. So I dumped nearly all of my gear (mostly given away) and decided to pursue computer music, algorithmic composition, and writing my own synthesis and DSP algorithms. Yet, here I am probably going a little overboard trying to treat my studio. Old habits (obsessions!) never die.

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by darkbuddha

Going back to the late mid-'90s, lots of my friends had home studios, and our version of "acoustic treatment" consisted of hand-me-down Sonex, Auralex, and those foam mattress pads. A bit here, a bit there, cover that wall... so naive.

It's much much worse than that. Even today, most people have no treatment at all, and many are doing pro work for paying clients. Yesterday I got a call from a major audio retailer asking for pricing on my company's least expensive product. They said their client is spending $100,000 on his new studio, so presumably they're buying a ton of high-end gear, yet they want the cheapest bass traps we make.

--Ethan

[darkbuddha]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

It's much much worse than that. Even today, most people have no treatment at all, and many are doing pro work for paying clients. Yesterday I got a call from a major audio retailer asking for pricing on my company's least expensive product. They said their client is spending $100,000 on his new studio, so presumably they're buying a ton of high-end gear, yet they want the cheapest bass traps we make.

--Ethan

Classic .

[SörenHjalmarsson]

I feel that a quote from the book Build Your Own Home Studio by JHBrandt might be in order:

"Today more and more CDs (and subsequent hit
records) are recorded in a home situation. The only
problem that I have with the typical home studio is
that it is usually NOT a studio, but a collection of
studio equipment. In order for you to have a real
studio, you must place your equipment in a room
where it can actually function and reach it’s full
potential."

/Sören

[The Vulture]

Just watched this.

- Pensado's Place - #21 - The secrets behind tuning your room! - YouTube

Very interesting!

[Glenn Kuras]

It is a 1 hour video. What part did you find "interesting"? What did you learn?

[The Vulture]

Well, I found the whole video interesting.

His philosophy about 70% speaker placement, 25% acoustic treatment and 5% (was it eq?).
And not having any rules off thumb was rather facinating.
For example not setting up the listening position on the short side off the room.

These were some new ideas for me.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread.
I'm just exploring the idea if advice on treatment/listening position etc is often to simplifyed.
It seems Bob Hodas work under fairly other principles then what is most common here.

Just to make it very clear.
I am just exploring some thoughts and mean no disrespect to anyone.

[Glenn Kuras]

His philosophy about 70% speaker placement, 25% acoustic treatment and 5% (was it eq?).

I would totally disagree with that, if that was what he said. Besides eq, which I am over all against, speaker set up and acoustics work together. There is no way you can say 70% or so on. Which would you rather have a room that is treated right and not the ideal set up or a non treated room with the ideal set up? I myself would take the treated all day long.

And not having any rules off thumb was rather facinating.
For example not setting up the listening position on the short side off the room.

I am sure you could find some room out there that might work better that way, but hey test your own room and see. I have my money on facing the short wall.

[The Vulture]

Originally Posted by Glenn Kuras

I would totally disagree with that, if that was what he said. Besides eq, which I am over all against, speaker set up and acoustics work together. There is no way you can say 70% or so on. Which would you rather have a room that is treated right and not the ideal set up or a non treated room with the ideal set up? I myself would take the treated all day long.

As I understand him it`s a combination off the three.
None off them can be taken away.
The percent is just to illustrate the importance off each element.
So I wouldn`t take a treated room or an ideal setup.
I`ll take both

Originally Posted by Glenn Kuras

I am sure you could find some room out there that might work better that way, but hey test your own room and see. I have my money on facing the short wall.

That is probably true.
But as he said(if I remember correctly) there is ONE spot in the room where the freq response is the flattest.
He did not like rules off thumbs and he is an expert.
Dave Pensado seems to think he is the real deal.

I don`t know..

[Glenn Kuras]

As I understand him it`s a combination off the three.
None off them can be taken away.
The percent is just to illustrate the importance off each element.
So I wouldn`t take a treated room or an ideal setup.
I`ll take both

I take both also, but my point was if you had to choice between the 2. In a lot of cases our clients just can't sit in the ideal spot.

[Rod Gervais]

Originally Posted by Glenn Kuras

I take both also, but my point was if you had to choice between the 2. In a lot of cases our clients just can't sit in the ideal spot.

Glenn,

We have to keep what he said in context..... he was not speaking in reference to the concept of a limited home studio - i.e.: the "I have a spot in my bedroom" sort of thing. I watched the entire thing - and found little that I did not agree with (this a matter of approach mostly.)

Given the availability of starting with an empty room - his percentages are probably not all that far off.

I don't believe he was speaking about an importance factor here in the sense of location being more important than treatment - but rather that the most important thing to do before treatment is to find the spot in the room that has the best response going into it, which is a whole lot of work actually - more so than treating the room once it's done because of the fact that any spot in a room will have multiple speaker locations to test for that spot - one of which will be "the best" for that particular location. Then change listening position and retest multiple speaker locations for that new location.....

Assuming someone is taking a methodical approach to this - which means a lot of tests for each and every change they make (averaging the results for each condition to rule out anomalies) getting to the point where you have found the best response within the room is a much larger (and tedious) part of the process than actually doing the treatments.

Granted there is testing required there as well (when treating the room) however you are now also working with a much smaller testing area with an established listening to speaker location for those tests.

As far as the EQ goes - There is a certain (albeit, very small) amount of tweaking that can be done to smooth out small peaks when all is said and done through the use of narrow band PEQ.

Have a great day,

Rod

[Glenn Kuras]

I don't believe he was speaking about an importance factor here in the sense of location being more important than treatment - but rather that the most important thing to do before treatment is to find the spot in the room that has the best response going into it, which is a whole lot of work actually - more so than treating the room once it's done because of the fact that any spot in a room will have multiple speaker locations to test for that spot - one of which will be "the best" for that particular location. Then change listening position and retest multiple speaker locations for that new location.....

I actually did not watch the whole video so was only commenting from what V said. Thanks for clearing up what he meant.

As far as the EQ goes - There is a certain (albeit, very small) amount of tweaking that can be done to smooth out small peaks when all is said and done through the use of narrow band PEQ.

Agreed.

[darkbuddha]

I have to admit that I'm a little dubious of all of this from a practicality perspective. I suppose it isn't unreasonable for a professional to spend their time (and the client's money) testing 15 or 20 (or 50?!?) potential listening locations within a room, but if the "ideal" location ended up being awkwardly located and oriented in the room, how likely is the client to say "Okay, so what that I can't open the door, and I can't see the tracking room, and my gear can't fit nearby, and I feel confined and disoriented in the room now, and it's aesthetically distracting and displeasing, and ..."? These are all things that (can) matter. And what happens when you start trying even more monitor placement positions? And what if the "ideal" spot results in a less than ideal sweet spot (i.e. too small for multiple listeners) or if the "ideal" spot is surrounded by f'ing horrible spots? And what happens to that "ideal" spot once you start filling the room with a desk, a few sets of monitors, a half dozen chairs, and start applying treatments? And really, how "ideal" is the "ideal" spot compared to, say, another more convenient, more functional, more aesthetically pleasing spot in the room?

I ask all of these questions not in an effort to discount or discredit anything anyone has said or asserted, but in the context of the OP's original questioning of:

Originally Posted by The Vulture

The more I learn about acoustics the more I start to grasp how complex it is.
Often when advice is given about treatment it is very simplified and examples of room setups are given.
I am not trying to discard general guidelines to treatment but is it sometimes being to dumbed down?

Of course it's complex; it's probably too complex for most to understand or want to understand. Of course the advice being given about treatment is being simplified. And yes, it's all being dumbed down. But as I said before, this is exactly what it needs to be for folks that aren't acoustic pros or enthusiasts to benefit, especially if the alternative is to test 20+ listening spots, 20+ monitor placement spots, possibly end up with an awkwardly oriented and possibly non-functional space, and then load in their desk and gear and retest to maybe find out the ideal spot has changed or moved, and then treat the room, re-treat, retest, re-treat, etc., etc., etc.

It would be really interesting to see someone test a setup at the truly "ideal" spot versus the generically prescribed "one size fits all" spot that is generally advised. Determine how significant the differences are, do a cost-benefit analysis, etc. No one will do it because it's way too complicated (and complex) to do accurately and without reproach, and the only folks it would really benefit are those that could maybe afford to hire a pro but are also considering DIY'ing it, and that may only hurt the pro's that are capable of pulling off a test like this.

Personally, if I could hire a pro to come in and do it properly, I would. But I can't, so I'm appreciative to have their generically prescribed, simplified, dumbed down advice to help guide my otherwise rather under-informed and unguided attempts to set up and treat my own space.

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by darkbuddha

but if the "ideal" location ended up being awkwardly located and oriented in the room, how likely is the client to say "Okay, so what that I can't open the door, and I can't see the tracking room, and my gear can't fit nearby, and I feel confined and disoriented in the room now, and it's aesthetically distracting and displeasing

Fortunately, it doesn't work that way. There are several more or less standard layouts that are known to work well, and in all cases the mix position is centered left-right in the room. So it's not like the "best" mix position will turn out to be facing a rear corner.

Of course it's complex; it's probably too complex for most to understand or want to understand. Of course the advice being given about treatment is being simplified. And yes, it's all being dumbed down.

Well, it's not that complicated either. The main limitation with treating small project studios effectively is most people can't treat their rooms optimally for lack of space, funds, or domestic partner tranquility. When making a pro studio with the luxury to have a large enough space and as many bass traps as are really needed, it's not difficult to nail it the first time.

--Ethan

[2manyrocks]

Originally Posted by Glenn Kuras

Honestly a month does not go by that someone calls me, feeling totally ripped off because they hired some over priced designer that promised the moon and gave them very little.

This problem affects both the guy who has a small space and groups that have larger space, too, in the sense that if you don't personally know what you're doing, this sort of thing happens.

The rip off frequently happens to churches, not just in acoustics, but in what gets sold to them for sound equipment. When the $ is spent, they can't afford to go back and redo it all, either, it it is not right. Not knowing what to do or who to consult, I think many just continue to ignore obvious problems.

How do you find someone who is honest and competent to consult with a church about the typical bad acoustics in a gym or other similar multipurpose facility?

[darkbuddha]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

Fortunately, it doesn't work that way. There are several more or less standard layouts that are known to work well, and in all cases the mix position is centered left-right in the room. So it's not like the "best" mix position will turn out to be facing a rear corner.



Well, it's not that complicated either. The main limitation with treating small project studios effectively is most people can't treat their rooms optimally for lack of space, funds, or domestic partner tranquility. When making a pro studio with the luxury to have a large enough space and as many bass traps as are really needed, it's not difficult to nail it the first time.

--Ethan

Good news on all fronts! I suppose you're right that when you have the luxury to do it without limitations, of course you're more likely to get it right. And your sage advice certainly helped me get my room much closer to right even with the limitations of space, lack of funds, and domestic partner (and kids) tranquility. But I know enough now to know that I don't know nearly enough to say I know enough. Know what I mean?