Listening room vs control room

[Audio X]

Originally Posted by blizt

I read sometimes people refering to them as if they where different. Are they? I dont understand why they should.

It could be a matter of semantics, but I associate "listening room" more with a dedicated mastering room where the primary focus is critical listening in conditions set up for just that. ...Where in a "Control room" a lot more gets done like, production, tracking, composing, programming, etc. ..

[Rod Gervais]

The term "listening room" can describe a lot of different spaces... the term is generic in nature.

The terms "control room", mixing room (which may or may not be a control room), mastering room" are non generic - this even though all are are listening rooms.

My brother - who has nada to do with the music industry or recording - has a dedicated "listening room" in his home........ he sits in the sweet spot when he wants to unwind...

The term in and of itself is not indicative of any specific use of a space other than a place to listen......... it suggests dedicated use - but that is not a prerequisite.

Rod

[Jolida]

Originally Posted by blizt

I read sometimes people refering to them as if they where different. Are they? I dont understand why they should.

So much goes into the set-up of a Control Room. It all boils down to getting the music right. Same applies to a listening room (a 'dedicated' listening room), where if things ain't technically & acoustically correct, will not quite possibly "Re-create" what had been done in a dedicated Control Room...

[localhost127]

Originally Posted by blizt

I read sometimes people refering to them as if they where different. Are they? I dont understand why they should.

control room/mix room is to be a critically accurate reproduction space that should be as neutral as possible that allows a user to make critical mixing decisions of which are not skewed or masked by how the room imposes indirect energy at the listening position.

a listening room can have a myriad of design requirements - from that mimicking a control room (eg, a critically accurate reproduction space), or a subjectively pleasing listening space based on the owner's own personal preferences. the user could decide to allow the room itself to function as an "FX", as in some home theater applications. the user could also wish for any and all source material to sound subjectively pleasing, where-as a listening room designed for accuracy with respect to the direct signal may clearly show mix/mastering flaws in the source material (eg, a poor mastering/mix job).

both may have design requirements adjusted to account for additional seating/listening positions and arrangements (listening room may have a row of seats, a control room may have a rear couch/listening position for the clients, - and also the mix board/work surface,etc).

[avare]

The best definition of the diffrence between a control room and listening room is that control room has big table sized piece of furniture in it and a listening room does not. Beyond that ITU 1116 specifies a listening room as having central sweet spot (not the term used) for several listeners. I hope that helps cloud the issue.

Nebulously,
Andre

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by blizt

I read sometimes people refering to them as if they where different. Are they? I dont understand why they should.

In my opinion a good listening room should have the same characteristics as a professional mixing or mastering room. Some people believe that a hi-fi room should sound "good" rather than accurate. I think this is misguided. If a room is accurate, then by definition it will sound good. Or at least as good as the recorded material itself.

Mixing and mastering engineers are (hopefully) highly skilled at making stuff sound "good." They tweak the music to sound as pleasing as possible to them in their accurate environments. So if you want to experience the same sound, and I think that's the best goal, then your room should be accurate too. Some people think a smiley EQ curve sounds "good" to them, but more sophisticated listeners rightly avoid such gimmicks.

--Ethan

The Acoustic Treatment Experts

[jim1961]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

In my opinion a good listening room should have the same characteristics as a professional mixing or mastering room. Some people believe that a hi-fi room should sound "good" rather than accurate. I think this is misguided. If a room is accurate, then by definition it will sound good. Or at least as good as the recorded material itself.

Mixing and mastering engineers are (hopefully) highly skilled at making stuff sound "good." They tweak the music to sound as pleasing as possible to them in their accurate environments. So if you want to experience the same sound, and I think that's the best goal, then your room should be accurate too. Some people think a smiley EQ curve sounds "good" to them, but more sophisticated listeners rightly avoid such gimmicks.

--Ethan

The Acoustic Treatment Experts

I have a wide range of opinions when it comes to what mastering engineers do. Some I like very much (Alan Parsons, Steve Hoffman, Barry Diament & Eroc among others). But a host of others basically sound like **** (judging by the final product).

In a nutshell, all albums do not sound equally good, and that's a gross understatement IMO given my listening experiences.

I started a thread to discuss what people like, inspired by this thread, so I wont go into that kind of detail here.