Is the perfect room treatment to be in a open field?

[Brainchild]

Though I'd prefer my speakers set into a 200' x 200 concrete wall in the field.

[jim1961]

No, because you want some ambiance which is controlled reflections.

Absorption get top billing because a myriad of problems develop in an untreated room and absorption is usually whats needed most in small rooms not to mention the most affordable of treatments. Like anything else, it can be over done and can lead to a sterile presentation. But the right amount can cure many ills.

[OpusOfTrolls]

Open air would cause no SBIR/Modal problems with the sound.

[syncussion]

I disagree that one wants some reflections.

Maybe for a home hifi listening experience where one tries to get the most involving sound for a stereo setup (in other words, try to make stereo sound more like surround with sound also comming from behind, above, sides further than speaker spread etc).
But for a studio where you want to hear only what's in the music itself, an anechoic room is ideal (or an open field / high in the air which is the same in this sense).

Now other things come to play in an anechoic room, some people find it uncomfortable to be in a space without reflections, but this has nothing to do with the sound in such a room.
And an open field has other issues like rain, wind noise etc of course.
But the underlying idea is right I think.

[AwwDeOhh]

You do want walls.
That is how we percieve sound naturally.
Thing is... most home studios are in waay to small a room.

[Rod Gervais]

Originally Posted by syncussion

I disagree that one wants some reflections.

Maybe for a home hifi listening experience where one tries to get the most involving sound for a stereo setup (in other words, try to make stereo sound more like surround with sound also comming from behind, above, sides further than speaker spread etc).
But for a studio where you want to hear only what's in the music itself, an anechoic room is ideal (or an open field / high in the air which is the same in this sense).

Now other things come to play in an anechoic room, some people find it uncomfortable to be in a space without reflections, but this has nothing to do with the sound in such a room.
And an open field has other issues like rain, wind noise etc of course.
But the underlying idea is right I think.

Sync,

As a studio designer I would have to disagree.

I am not going to speak for any other designers - but this approach would not work for me - nor would my clients be happy with it.

We live in a world of sounds with reflections (with very few exceptions) and there is nothing wrong with approaching the design of critical listening and mixing rooms with that in mind.

The standards that govern the proper design of critical listening spaces take into account early and late reflections - but do not require reflection free environments - nor do they suggest that this might be preferable.......

The concept of my designs - when I refer to "taking the room out of the equation" - has everything to do with doing away with any acoustic anomalies that the room might bring into the picture - but not with the room being invisible in it's entirety.

Tony Bongiovi - whose "A" room at Power Station NYC (now Avatar Studios) had over 160 gold & platinum awards recorded/mixed in the room before he sold out to Avatar - and who designed that studio (along with the "B" & "C" rooms) says that his philosophy of control room design is to remove acoustic problems from the space - and (in a perfect world) to achieve what would be basically the environment of the average living room - because that was where the majority of people (at least in those days) would be listening to their music.

Now that is not necessarily my approach - however - what is the goal of a mixing room design?

It is to create an environment where the music being mixed will translate outside of the room.

If any engineer (not any Joe off the street - but any real engineer) can walk into a room (that he has never been in before) and right "out the the chute" can create a mix that translates in the real world - without having to "learn the room" then that room is a successful design.

If the room is comfortable to work in for long periods of time - then the room is a huge success......

If the room has a great sound field, one that is wide and deep - then it is an even bigger success.

I would never try to design a room like the outdoors for the purpose of mixing in - and I doubt very much that mixing music while elevated outside would result in music being properly mixed...... can't swear to that - but I really seriously doubt we would like the results right off the bat. Which is not the same as saying someone could not learn to work in that environment - much the same as someone can learn to work in an untreated space and still produce some excellent results if they really have the chops for it.

Rod

[syncussion]

So in an open field we do not perceive sound naturally?
Does not make sense to me.
Rooms are unnatural, only thing resembling them in nature is a cave.
A room is nothing like for instance being in a forest, the natural place with reflections.

Besides, it is up to the recording to give an illusion of space. (or be extremely tight and upfront like some sounds in electronic music for instance)

Now, a stereo speaker setup has its own limitations.
But is it up to a room to try to get around these limitations? (which will always give a coloring of the recording, even in a NE room there's a small tradeoff)
For home hifi listening perhaps yes, for studio control room / mastering room I think no (or perhaps very slightly like in a NE room).

[Tashez]

I take it that the perfect room is perfectly flat response right with no reflections ? So what you hear .... is what you actually hear .

[syncussion]

Originally Posted by Rod Gervais

Now that is not necessarily my approach - however - what is the goal of a mixing room design?

It is to create an environment where the music being mixed will translate outside of the room.

If any engineer (not any Joe off the street - but any real engineer) can walk into a room right off and create a mix that translates well in the real world - without having to "learn the room" then that room is a successful design.

If the room is comfortable to work in for long periods of time - then the room is a huge success......

If the room has a great sound field, one that is wide and deep - then it is an even bigger success.

I would never try to design a room like the outdoors for the purpose of mixing in - and I doubt very much that mixing music while elevated outside would result in music being properly mixed...... can't swear to that - but I really seriously doubt we would like the results right off the bat (which is not the same as saying someone could not learn to work in that environment - much the same as someone can learn to work in an untreated space and still produce some excellent results if they really have the chops for it.

Rod

Hi Rod,

Your experience is far greater than mine
I speak only from a few personal experiences and limited reading and thinking on the subject, and have never actually heard an anechoic room (building something fairly close to it myself but it's not finished yet)

But I do think that the reasoning behind taking the room out of the picture to give the most pure representation of the recording, is sound.
How could it not be?
My personal listening experiences so far support this (but are limited as I stated above).

As for these rooms potentially not translating.. There are many mastering rooms which are practically near anechoic which output many hit records.

[OpusOfTrolls]

Is music better with reverberation? The answer is yes.

[Rod Gervais]

Originally Posted by Tashez

I take it that the perfect room is perfectly flat response right with no reflections ? So what you hear .... is what you actually hear .

I would take that as being wrong......... first off - the standards for room design set "flat" as being +/- 3dB at 1/3 octave smoothing - which is not really what anyone would call "perfectly flat".

The human brain has the capacity to discern between early and late reflections - and the goal is to create an environment that removes obstacles that might otherwise color the decisions we make when mixing - late reflections are not the issues when it comes to those decisions.....

So when we say "flat" it is (always) with the understanding that this is to some certain degree - (hell try to find a perfectly flat speaker to place in that theoretically perfectly flat room) the same is true with the control of any resonance......

Rod

[OpusOfTrolls]

Originally Posted by syncussion

But I do think that the reasoning behind taking the room out of the picture to give the most pure representation of the recording, is sound.
How could it not be?
My personal listening experiences so far support this (but are limited as I stated above).

Control rooms are designed for a reverb which is -20db lower than the direct signal. If you put on headphones and setup a reverb in your DAW for the same power level, it is almost inaudible, but only because it is the accumulation of the sound that is already present. Because of this addition, it must 'mix' well so the sound quality is not altered.

[OpusOfTrolls]

Originally Posted by Rod Gervais

So when we say "flat" it is (always) with the understanding that this is to some certain degree - (hell try to find a perfectly flat speaker to place in that theoretically perfectly flat room) the same is true with the control of any resonance......

Rod

That's right. Control rooms aren't designed to resonate. They add energy from the reflection to the listener in a non resonant way.

[AwwDeOhh]

Originally Posted by syncussion

So in an open field we do not perceive sound naturally?
Does not make sense to me.
Rooms are unnatural, only thing resembling them in nature is a cave.
A room is nothing like for instance being in a forest, the natural place with reflections..

Right, but when you're in a forest, it sounds like you're in a forest. When you're in a cave, it sounds like you're in a cave.

Most people live most of their days indoors to some extent. That's become our 'natural' environment.

[Rod Gervais]

Originally Posted by syncussion

Hi Rod,

Your experience is far greater than mine
I speak only from a few personal experiences and limited reading and thinking on the subject, and have never actually heard an anechoic room (building something fairly close to it myself but it's not finished yet)

But I do think that the reasoning behind taking the room out of the picture to give the most pure representation of the recording, is sound.

How could it not be?

The term "sound" is an undefined - unquantified - abstract...... just as is the term "sounds good"

It is subjective - not objective - and it is impossible to design to subjective standards.

The goal in the design of a space has to be something that is tangible - something we can physically measure - physically identify - to prove to the owner (when all is said and done) that we have reached our goal.

This is why we have standards for critical listening spaces - and contracts with specifications.

As for these rooms potentially not translating.. There are many mastering rooms which are practically near anechoic which output many hit records.

Please do not put words into my mouth - I am perfectly capable of saying exactly what I mean.......

I never once said that you could not produce results in rooms that were semi-anechoic (I don't know how one would actually work in a real anechoic chamber) that would translate well - I simply stated that this is not a prerequisite for control room design.

I would also point out that the example I gave was not a statement that it was not possible to produce award winning recordings in such an environment - but simply to prove that this was not (in and of itself) a prerequisite to obtain such results.

My control rooms have very controlled environments - but are nowhere near to being reflection free - and all of my clients absolutely love their rooms.

Rod

[Tashez]

Originally Posted by Rod Gervais

Sync,

As a studio designer I would have to disagree.

I am not going to speak for any other designers - but this approach would not work for me - nor would my clients be happy with it.

We live in a world of sounds with reflections (with very few exceptions) and there is nothing wrong with approaching the design of critical listening and mixing rooms with that in mind.

The standards that govern the proper design of critical listening spaces take into account early and late reflections - but do not require reflection free environments - nor do they suggest that this might be preferable.......

The concept of my designs - when I refer to "taking the room out of the equation" - has everything to do with doing away with any acoustic anomalies that the room might bring into the picture - but not with the room being invisible in it's entirety.

Tony Bongiovi - whose "A" room at Power Station NYC (now Avatar Studios) had over 160 gold & platinum awards recorded/mixed in the room before he sold out to Avatar - and who designed that studio (along with the "B" & "C" rooms) says that his philosophy of control room design is to remove acoustic problems from the space - and (in a perfect world) to achieve what would be basically the environment of the average living room - because that was where the majority of people (at least in those days) would be listening to their music.

Now that is not necessarily my approach - however - what is the goal of a mixing room design?

It is to create an environment where the music being mixed will translate outside of the room.

If any engineer (not any Joe off the street - but any real engineer) can walk into a room (that he has never been in before) and right "out the the chute" can create a mix that translates in the real world - without having to "learn the room" then that room is a successful design.

If the room is comfortable to work in for long periods of time - then the room is a huge success......

If the room has a great sound field, one that is wide and deep - then it is an even bigger success.

I would never try to design a room like the outdoors for the purpose of mixing in - and I doubt very much that mixing music while elevated outside would result in music being properly mixed...... can't swear to that - but I really seriously doubt we would like the results right off the bat. Which is not the same as saying someone could not learn to work in that environment - much the same as someone can learn to work in an untreated space and still produce some excellent results if they really have the chops for it.

Rod

Ha ha Tony ...John Bon Jovi's brother right ? I dont understand why every one is so hellbent on the perfect room considering that no one listens in the " perfect "room at home or in their car . I thought that it would be good to hear the music with the reflections as that's how the consumer will hear it .Then what about ear buds and headphone where there are no reflections ?

Im not bothering to treat my room any more as it is too small to ever be perfect but it sounds good to me . I see a lot of posts of people freaking out about this frequency and that . Then doing more treatment and nothing changes where in reality according to Thomas Jouanjean small rooms cannot be made perfect so don't bother . Most of us home studio guys are in the worst scenario situation ...small rooms low ceilings .

Then I was wondering if you can even produce the perfect room . What if your perfect room is not some one else's perfect room . Isn't it like asking which guitar sounds the best or which monitors , where you will get 100 s of different replies .

In a mix you'll get some one saying too much bass and the next guy telling you to turn it down ( not in hip hop you can never have too much bass!!!)
Is this the same with rooms and how they sound or is there some method or a standard where it is agreed that the room is perfect . Do we not all hear differently also ?

[Tashez]

Originally Posted by Rod Gervais

The term "sound" is an undefined - unquantified - abstract...... just as is the term "sounds good"

It is subjective - not objective - and it is impossible to design to subjective standards.

The goal in the design of a space has to be something that is tangible - something we can physically measure - physically identify - to prove to the owner (when all is said and done) that we have reached our goal.

This is why we have standards for critical listening spaces - and contracts with specifications.



Please do not put words into my mouth - I am perfectly capable of saying exactly what I mean.......

I never once said that you could not produce results in rooms that were semi-anechoic (I don't know how one would actually work in a real anechoic chamber) that would translate well - I simply stated that this is not a prerequisite for control room design.

I would also point out that the example I gave was not a statement that it was not possible to produce award winning recordings in such an environment - but simply to prove that this was not (in and of itself) a prerequisite to obtain such results.

My control rooms have very controlled environments - but are nowhere near to being reflection free - and all of my clients absolutely love their rooms.

Rod

So Rod when you leave one of your finished rooms, all things being the same for the sake of the argument ( monitors , desk etc) would the sample sound the same in each of the rooms ? Do you get it that precise ? Can you get it that precise ? Does a treated medium room sound like a treated large room if reflections are taken care of ?

[Jens Eklund]

Originally Posted by OpusOfTrolls

Control rooms are designed for a reverb which is -20db lower than the direct signal.

Is this a competition for the highest number of inaccurate statements squeezed into one sentence?


Reverberation does not exist in SAS (Small Acoustic Spaces).

Only one design branch (NE and related designs) in control room design is striving for effectively anechoic speaker response; -20 dB or lower after direct sound (reflections, not "reverberation" ...). The more common ones (LEDE/RFZ) and others like CID ESS etc, are striving for reflections much higher than -20 dB, usually above about -12 dB.

[Jens Eklund]

OP:

You’ll find the answers you’re looking for if you read up on the common design concepts used for control rooms; NE, LEDE/RFZ etc.

[Rod Gervais]

Originally Posted by Tashez

So Rod when you leave one of your finished rooms, all things being the same for the sake of the argument ( monitors , desk etc) would the sample sound the same in each of the rooms ? Do you get it that precise ? Can you get it that precise ? Does a treated medium room sound like a treated large room if reflections are taken care of ?

Listen - if all you want is a hypothetical situation - so we can ignore reality - then given the same set of plans - with perfect construction in both instances - and 2 totally different sound chains with the exact same gear in the 2 chains - perfect equipment that is exactly on spec with the exact same low voltage wiring paths and perfectly clean line voltage with perfect grounding conditions - with speakers that were tested so we know they are perfectly matched pairs - in rooms with exactly the same furniture in exactly the same locations - and the same people in the space during both tests, along with the exact same temperatures and humidity levels - then yes the 2 rooms would be identical when tested.

Small rooms do not "sound" like large rooms - not even in the case of anechoic chambers - where room volume determines the lowest frequency the room will support for accurate testing purposes.

There are some pretty severe limitations on what can be achieved in certain rooms - the room size shape and volume all come into play.....

If this were not the case we would all be saving a ton of money and mixing in shoe boxes........

Rod

[kasmira]

Originally Posted by syncussion

So in an open field we do not perceive sound naturally?
Does not make sense to me.
Rooms are unnatural, only thing resembling them in nature is a cave.
A room is nothing like for instance being in a forest, the natural place with reflections.

Besides, it is up to the recording to give an illusion of space. (or be extremely tight and upfront like some sounds in electronic music for instance)

Now, a stereo speaker setup has its own limitations.
But is it up to a room to try to get around these limitations? (which will always give a coloring of the recording, even in a NE room there's a small tradeoff)
For home hifi listening perhaps yes, for studio control room / mastering room I think no (or perhaps very slightly like in a NE room).

You are fully missing the point. Yes, a fully open field free from a room would make all acoustic problems disappear (assuming isolation isn't necessary) - but that is not what we want. No one listens to it in an open field. Barely anyone listens with a treated environment, but you're not getting the picture. Mixing a song with a +/- 20dB room will likely not translate out of that room to sound good everywhere else. Mixing a song in a +/- 5dB room you have a much larger chance of what you hear translating. All rooms will have reflections. This is subsequently why we never suggest people to completely deaden their room. We try to hear accurately, so we can judge it properly, and so it will hopefully translate and sound good in a lot of places.

This is why we do not mix in anechoic chambers. And seriously, try mixing outside for a day in an open field or in an anechoic chamber. A science center I visited had a small anechoic chamber in it. I clapped once and thought my ears were going to bleed. It was not pleasant.

Think about this: If someone listens to music in the same spot often, or with the same speakers, etc, they get used to them. They know how their speakers and room sound (even if they don't know they do). So even if their room is off, all of the music they listen to is equally off in the same position. But if you mix it in a room that has horrid response, and their room has horrid response at other frequencies, its going to sound much worse in their room compared to the other music they listen to. Does that make sense?

[rock thomas]

Tashez, in the hypothetical situation, I would prefer a vacuum and then fill it with nitrogen at a constant temperature. The size of the room could be dynamic based on the volume. I think the result would be close to a forest in deep snow. I would think floating air would be interesting, maybe perfect, but wind would be hard to avoid.

[Tashez]

So what makes a big room sound ' big" . Is it the reflections . If you take away the reflections then what . Would a large anechoic chamber sound the same as a small anechoic chamber ? Isn't it only the reflections that make it sound big ?

Why not just develop a set of head phones (and im sure they already exist ) that takes care of all the treatment for you or is it because bass is hard to reproduce properly in head phones . Do away with the monitors and room altogether ?

[Rod Gervais]

Originally Posted by Tashez

So what makes a big room sound ' big" . Is it the reflections . If you take away the reflections then what . Would a large anechoic chamber sound the same as a small anechoic chamber ? Isn't it only the reflections that make it sound big ?

Nope........ a big room sounds big because of the volume.......... an anechoic chamber does not sound the same as it would sound if you were outside - sitting 1500 feet in the air surrounded by nothing but empty sky....

Why not just develop a set of head phones (and im sure they already exist ) that takes care of all the treatment for you or is it because bass is hard to reproduce properly in head phones . Do away with the monitors and room altogether ?

There are some really good headphones out there - but not any (that I am aware of) that can truly emulate the sound in a good mixing room....... besides which - it is cumbersome to wear headphones for long periods of time - hours on end - day after day.......

It seems to me that you were never really looking for anything other than confirmation of your original supposition. I could be wrong - but don't believe that to be the case.

Rod

[perform/record]

Originally Posted by syncussion

...(or an open field / high in the air which is the same in this sense). ...

Why would the open field have to be high in the air?

Edit:
Sorry, I think i may have misunderstood.

[syncussion]

Originally Posted by kasmira

You are fully missing the point. Yes, a fully open field free from a room would make all acoustic problems disappear (assuming isolation isn't necessary) - but that is not what we want. No one listens to it in an open field. Barely anyone listens with a treated environment, but you're not getting the picture. Mixing a song with a +/- 20dB room will likely not translate out of that room to sound good everywhere else. Mixing a song in a +/- 5dB room you have a much larger chance of what you hear translating. All rooms will have reflections. This is subsequently why we never suggest people to completely deaden their room. We try to hear accurately, so we can judge it properly, and so it will hopefully translate and sound good in a lot of places.

I did not miss your point, but perhaps you are missing mine?
Any room reflection is not on the recording. It is in fact a form of distortion.
And it will always limit dynamic range for instance and color the speaker output (even when maximally diffuse and flat in response etc).

Now you claim that we NEED room reflections to make music that translates well. I claim this is not so.
First of all, look at actual practice. The rooms that are most purpose built for critical listening for translation are mastering rooms.
A large portion of mastering rooms are near anechoic (at least from speaker to listener point of view), and these rooms translate great! And I belief better than somewhat live control rooms.

Now I also personally think that a room with reverb is limiting for creating and mixing music. It won't allow a completely tight dry sound if you wish etc.
Yet in an anechoic room one can add reverb. An anechoic room is hearing only what is on the recording and giving you a blank page to start with with full dynamic range and all colors possible available.

Btw people do listen in open fields, for instance festivals, boombox at the beach etc etc.
People also listen on headphones a LOT.

This is why we do not mix in anechoic chambers. And seriously, try mixing outside for a day in an open field or in an anechoic chamber. A science center I visited had a small anechoic chamber in it. I clapped once and thought my ears were going to bleed. It was not pleasant.

Clapping your hands in an anechoic room is completely different from listening to music in an anechoic room.
But when listening to music in an anechoic room and you have a sound of your handclap recorded in an anechoic room then at least you can reproduce the not pleasant handclap sound. The room itself is not limiting anything.

Think about this: If someone listens to music in the same spot often, or with the same speakers, etc, they get used to them. They know how their speakers and room sound (even if they don't know they do). So even if their room is off, all of the music they listen to is equally off in the same position. But if you mix it in a room that has horrid response, and their room has horrid response at other frequencies, its going to sound much worse in their room compared to the other music they listen to. Does that make sense?

Yes, it does make sense, and I know this.
But this does not speak against using an anechoic room in any way.

[syncussion]

Originally Posted by Rod Gervais

Nope........ a big room sounds big because of the volume.......... an anechoic chamber does not sound the same as it would sound if you were outside - sitting 1500 feet in the air surrounded by nothing but empty sky....

Huuh? Why would it not sound the same?
It should.

There are some really good headphones out there - but not any (that I am aware of) that can truly emulate the sound in a good mixing room....... besides which - it is cumbersome to wear headphones for long periods of time - hours on end - day after day.......

It seems to me that you were never really looking for anything other than confirmation of your original supposition. I could be wrong - but don't believe that to be the case.

Rod

There are several limitations to headphones.
But the main limitation of headphones is that they mostly remove the influence of your ear.
The ear (and even the head) due to it's shape modifies sound in specific ways depending on which direction the sound comes from. The brain expects this, headphones are very unnatural for removing this. You can't make sense of the mix is one effect this gives. (even big open headphones do this, only the AKG K1000 when flapped out max goes some small way of presenting a more natural source)
If one were to have a perfect earplug style headphone, and the recording is made with microphones in a dummy head with ears (like the neumann mic), then headphones are better in my opinion than any speaker system with the only exception being not feeling the bass physically.
But too bad there is almost no market for such music, and perfect earplug style headphones are far from reality, even the bigger open headphones like sennheiser hd800 are far from ideal in frequency response and dynamics in my experience.

[Rod Gervais]

Originally Posted by Tashez

Ha ha Tony ...John Bon Jovi's brother right ?

Nope - his 2nd cousin actually - Power Station NYC is where Jon was first recorded - Tony helped him get started in his career there. Tony is a rather brilliant man.

I dont understand why every one is so hellbent on the perfect room considering that no one listens in the " perfect "room at home or in their car .

First off - the intent of a critical listening room is just that - critical listening........

How can one listen in a critical manner if the room is introducing anomalies in the music being played?

And remember - I simply said anomalies - not reflections - there is a huge difference....

Next - the term "perfect" is (yet again) something that cannot be quantified - we don't use terms like that is acoustics - this because "perfect" is much like "beauty" - it is in the eye of the beholder......

What you say above makes little sense to me - it would be like saying "why not make mixes that suck because the spaces people listen to music in suck - so why waste our time trying to make it all sound great"

I thought that it would be good to hear the music with the reflections as that's how the consumer will hear it .Then what about ear buds and headphone where there are no reflections ?

I thought (based on your original post) that you thought it would be good for the mixer to hear the music with no reflections - now I am totally confused...

Im not bothering to treat my room any more as it is too small to ever be perfect but it sounds good to me . I see a lot of posts of people freaking out about this frequency and that . Then doing more treatment and nothing changes where in reality according to Thomas Jouanjean small rooms cannot be made perfect so don't bother . Most of us home studio guys are in the worst scenario situation ...small rooms low ceilings .

There is a point in small room treatment (especially in small rooms where have to live with whatever you were stuck with from the starting point) where you reach the point of diminishing returns - if other words - first first big improvement get's you a long way towards your goal (whatever that might be) and then it takes an ever increasing investment (with a smaller return for that investment) as you make more improvements.

As far as how far you take it - that depends on the individual.

So if it sounds good to you - it sounds good to you - and the fact that someone else would choose to improve beyond that point doesn't make them right and you wrong - nor more than you choosing to stop make you right and them wrong..

This is all about an individuals choice to take their room t a particular point.

Thomas never said don't bother with small rooms - simply that they had limitations.

Then I was wondering if you can even produce the perfect room . What if your perfect room is not some one else's perfect room . Isn't it like asking which guitar sounds the best or which monitors , where you will get 100 s of different replies .

I have (repeatedly) tried in this thread to point out that terms like this are meaningless - would someone please define the word perfect in the sense of acoustics for me? Let's suppose someone contracted me to build them a control room that was "acoustically perfect" - and that I was stupid enough to sign a contract stating that as the design criteria - exactly how would I defend myself in a lawsuit when their very simple line of reasoning (in the courtroom) was "well your honor - it isn't perfect to me"....... how would I go about proving that I met my contractual obligations?

In a mix you'll get some one saying too much bass and the next guy telling you to turn it down ( not in hip hop you can never have too much bass!!!)

This has nothing to do with the question at hand..

The question here is not "what is too much bass in the mix?" - but rather - "can I (accurately) hear the level of bass in the mix so we can (now) begin a discussion of whether or not there is too much bass in the mix?"

Is this the same with rooms and how they sound or is there some method or a standard where it is agreed that the room is perfect . Do we not all hear differently also ?

There are standards for the design criteria of critical listening spaces...... nowhere in the standards is the word "perfect" used as a part of the criteria....

Rod

[Rod Gervais]

Originally Posted by syncussion

Huuh? Why would it not sound the same?
It should.

The idea of an anechoic chamber is to emulate free field conditions - however - chambers are limited by size, which determines how low in frequency they are effective......

Do not think that it is impossible to develop resonance in these chambers....

Rod