The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Favorite Mastering room design
Old 30th July 2014
  #31
Gear Guru
 
Thomas W. Bethe's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by matucha View Post
I'd like to add a question to the thread. What would you consider an ideal size for a mastering room? If the bunker and inner treatment takes ~1.2m away (total thicknes per side, 60cm each wall) you need something like 6x8x4 (in better ratio of course) to get to comfortable 5x7x3 interior size?
Everyone knows "bigger is better" when it comes to mastering rooms and other things...
Old 30th July 2014
  #32
Lives for gear
 
matucha's Avatar
I'm pretty sure there is some kind of sweetspot and from certain size it gets impractical ;-).
Old 30th July 2014
  #33
Lives for gear
 
teebaum's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe View Post
Everyone knows "bigger is better" when it comes to mastering rooms and other things...
really?

100m3 netto is a good size for my taste.
Old 31st July 2014
  #34
Lives for gear
 
DSD_Mastering's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Channel time View Post
That's handy (particularly for you)
Any chance you want to qualify your statement?
Is it any particular format, and why did you go for that type over another format?
Since it's built in a residential area, it had to be acoustically sound resistant. I have 2 rooms with a NC of 15. About a third of the cubic volume is bass trapping. The electrical system is through an Equi=tech wall panel. It is definitely not dead with RT60 of .3 -.35 from 250Hz - 5k
I have a freq response of +/- 5db from 18Hz to 1k. Mastering rooms were designed and acoustically tuned by Chris Huston and Bob Hodas.
Old 29th May 2018
  #35
Gear Maniac
 
Solid Mastering's Avatar
 

This thread was very interesting.

What’s considered the standard, if such a thing exists, rt60 for a mastering room?

Does the Rt influence the “spaciousness” of the monitors?
Old 30th May 2018
  #36
Lives for gear
 
Silvertone's Avatar
I built my room to Loudens ratios. I sort of modeled it after Bob Ludwig’s room at Gateway (also done within Loudens ratios) In building I use tried and true methods from the 40’s and 50’s. Everything is pretty much designed into the walls, hemholtz resonators, bass traps, etc... Surface absorption is owned Corning 701 with Guildford of Maine fabric. Old methods for an old engineer.

In actuality Steven Durr designed my room on a napkin at one AES show. As Stephen said, for mastering your making the ultimate living room. It doesn’t have to be treated the same way a typical studio does with room within a room construction. It doesn’t hurt to do that of course and may be needed depending on environment. I’m in the country so geese, owls and the occasional coyote can be heard.

I like natural sounding rooms. If a voice sounds natural, an acoustic guitar sounds great or you can play various instruments and hear everybody clearly then a great sound can be had.

I’ve recommended Thomas and Northward to several gaming companies that have contacted me about studio room designs. Even though I have never heard one of his rooms I hold the people that have used him in very high regards. I also have enjoyed Thomas’ posts over at Terry’s site. If I could afford Thomas and mastering was a booming business for me I’d hire him in a heart beat.

Alas, I’m building a church next to do some Columbia 30th street recordings so I’m referring to 15th century architecture for that... although I did like Owen Bradley’s Quonset Hut Sound quite a bit...
Old 30th May 2018
  #37
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
It is important to understand that the Quonset hut was a fluke. It was intended to be a film/television studio. An early television project involved a barn set that they found sounded better than the conventional studio they had built into the house in front. The setup required placing the microphones on marks in standing wave nulls and assumed that the same musicians and type of arrangement would be recorded.

While this was an extreme case, most studios recording session musicians had a standard setup that had been developed over many sessions. We were expected to complete four songs in three hours. There was no time for shooting out mikes and positioning. It was all about speed.
Old 30th May 2018
  #38
Gear Maniac
 
DBarbarulo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solid Mastering View Post
This thread was very interesting.

What’s considered the standard, if such a thing exists, rt60 for a mastering room?

Does the Rt influence the “spaciousness” of the monitors?
I think RT60 between .3 and .5 is fine as a "standard". Sound stage, in audiophile terms, is related to reverberation time. Without bouncing surfaces you can't go super wide without having a hole in the center. I've heard quite a few ultra wide consumer setups where the trade was spectrum linearity.
Old 30th May 2018
  #39
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by DBarbarulo View Post
I think RT60 between .3 and .5 is fine as a "standard". Sound stage, in audiophile terms, is related to reverberation time. Without bouncing surfaces you can't go super wide without having a hole in the center. I've heard quite a few ultra wide consumer setups where the trade was spectrum linearity.
If I didn't misunderstand you, actually it's quite the opposite.

Sound stage is negatively influenced by Early Reflections (or any reflection for that matter). There is no RT20/30/60 in small rooms - especially small treated rooms - that' a big misconception: there is no statistically diffused & homogeneous field in these spaces, which is the condition for reverberation. Hence no reverb. If there are still some reflective surfaces in the room, it's all discrete reflections above Schröder, and all pressure behaviour under.

Sabine's equation is very unreliable and is in practice only used if a room is large and has as an average absorption coefficient of max 0.2s. Eyring's formula is better for more absorptive rooms, but also reaches its limits fast.

Using any of these two in a studio will yield incoherent results at best. One of the tools you can use reliably to get time data are ETC and filtered ETC.

Our rooms are very absorptive over the full bandwidth, basically true non-environments in the speaker to engineer/room path. Yet image is very wide, with a strong center, and everything in-between.
Old 30th May 2018
  #40
Gear Maniac
 
Solid Mastering's Avatar
 

I understand you like natural sounding live rooms. Thomas rooms seem to be quite the opposite, very absorptive with little environment.

Probably the best way to make up our mind is to work for a prolonged period in both different environments.

Similarly to how we choose the best speakers to work with.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvertone View Post
I built my room to Loudens ratios. I sort of modeled it after Bob Ludwig’s room at Gateway (also done within Loudens ratios) In building I use tried and true methods from the 40’s and 50’s. Everything is pretty much designed into the walls, hemholtz resonators, bass traps, etc... Surface absorption is owned Corning 701 with Guildford of Maine fabric. Old methods for an old engineer.

In actuality Steven Durr designed my room on a napkin at one AES show. As Stephen said, for mastering your making the ultimate living room. It doesn’t have to be treated the same way a typical studio does with room within a room construction. It doesn’t hurt to do that of course and may be needed depending on environment. I’m in the country so geese, owls and the occasional coyote can be heard.

I like natural sounding rooms. If a voice sounds natural, an acoustic guitar sounds great or you can play various instruments and hear everybody clearly then a great sound can be had.

I’ve recommended Thomas and Northward to several gaming companies that have contacted me about studio room designs. Even though I have never heard one of his rooms I hold the people that have used him in very high regards. I also have enjoyed Thomas’ posts over at Terry’s site. If I could afford Thomas and mastering was a booming business for me I’d hire him in a heart beat.

Alas, I’m building a church next to do some Columbia 30th street recordings so I’m referring to 15th century architecture for that... although I did like Owen Bradley’s Quonset Hut Sound quite a bit...
Old 30th May 2018
  #41
Lives for gear
 
BIG BUDDHA's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by matucha View Post
I'd like to add a question to the thread. What would you consider an ideal size for a mastering room? If the bunker and inner treatment takes ~1.2m away (total thicknes per side, 60cm each wall) you need something like 6x8x4 (in better ratio of course) to get to comfortable 5x7x3 interior size?
just an interested mix engineer here.

could you guys give room dimensions in meters for height, width and length,and also cubic meter/volume.

also is it allways advantageous to have sealed boundaries.

thanks in advance Buddha
Old 30th May 2018
  #42
Lives for gear
 
Silvertone's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solid Mastering View Post
I understand you like natural sounding live rooms. Thomas rooms seem to be quite the opposite, very absorptive with little environment.

Probably the best way to make up our mind is to work for a prolonged period in both different environments.

Similarly to how we choose the best speakers to work with.
After 40 years in the business I have no need to make up my mind. I can walk into a room and in two seconds know if it’s can in environment I can (or will) work in. Same with speakers.

I never said live rooms, a good room is well balanced and you can hear everything, neutral might be a better word than natural as that term to some infers liveliness to some.

Anyway, I’m very old school and want rooms that have a sound now. I don’t like cookie cutter and sounding like everybody else. IMHO it is what has made music so boring for so many recordings.

Give me character, give me depth, give me more than sterile boring sound that can be had anywhere.

I like the early Studios like Fine, Columbia, Motown, Sigma, etc... as they all created their own sound. Once the 80’s hit and everything was recorded on a Neve and mixed on an SSL the sound of the production involving the room went away. Good for consistency from coast to coast but boring as hell sound wise.

So engineers became creative to change the sound... somewhat... but to me I still heard the same thing on just about every album I worked on. No one was standing out anymore. The artist of yesterday worked the room as well.

With DAW’s and Plug in’s now everything really sounds the same to me. I’m strictly talking sound wise, not production. Yes I work on great music everyday but the sound is very flat in many ways. I miss the depth of room and bleed of that room into the mic. Daniel Lanois and Malcolm Burn are some of the few producers who are very aware of this. It’s why Dan and Malcolm rarely record in conventional studios. The sound of the environments are all over those guys albums... which in turn makes them interesting and draws the listener in. There are others but they are few and far between.

I am just building something different next. That’s all.

I love the lab I’m in now... and so does everyone who works there. That speaks volumes.
Old 30th May 2018
  #43
Lives for gear
 
Silvertone's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northward View Post
If I didn't misunderstand you, actually it's quite the opposite.

Sound stage is negatively influenced by Early Reflections (or any reflection for that matter). There is no RT20/30/60 in small rooms - especially small treated rooms - that' a big misconception: there is no statistically diffused & homogeneous field in these spaces, which is the condition for reverberation. Hence no reverb. If there are still some reflective surfaces in the room, it's all discrete reflections above Schröder, and all pressure behaviour under.

Sabine's equation is very unreliable and is in practice only used if a room is large and has as an average absorption coefficient of max 0.2s. Eyring's formula is better for more absorptive rooms, but also reaches its limits fast.

Using any of these two in a studio will yield incoherent results at best. One of the tools you can use reliably to get time data are ETC and filtered ETC.

Our rooms are very absorptive over the full bandwidth, basically true non-environments in the speaker to engineer/room path. Yet image is very wide, with a strong center, and everything in-between.

They sound like they would be beautiful sounding controlled environments Thomas.

All the gaming companies build these tiny rooms and their architecture firms misrepresent what can be achieved. They throw around all the terms and some even do the calculations but it only looks right on paper. As Thomas has inferred these measurements can’t be achieved.

Then the client hears the flanking of the low end frequencies of each room that is around them... after they spend all the money they wonder what went wrong... and live with it.

Funny how Audio is the bastard child in that world as well. Ever play a video game with the sound turned off?

Someday I’ll hear one of your rooms Thomas. You and your firms reputation are the best in the industry right now... it’s good to be king. Enjoy it while it lasts. lol
Old 30th May 2018
  #44
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvertone View Post
You and your firms reputation are the best in the industry right now... it’s good to be king. Enjoy it while it lasts. lol
Thanks!

Just opened a Kebab restaurant downtown Brussels, to be future savvy.

It's the quietest in town.
Old 30th May 2018
  #45
Lives for gear
 
Silvertone's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northward View Post
Thanks!

Just opened a Kebab restaurant downtown Brussels, to be future savvy.

It's the quietest in town.
lol, that’s great Thomas!

Food is where it’s at! This is this your own place, correct?

My wife wants me to do one based on all the flatbread pizzas I make.

More Resturants need environmental control, it’s the number one complaint I hear from all my friends when we go out to eat. Too many hard surfaces and reflections so no one can hear or understand each other.

I’ve thought of going into a business just to cater to these environments. I could hand a card out in just about everyplace around here!
Old 30th May 2018
  #46
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvertone View Post
lol, that’s great Thomas!

Food is where it’s at! This is this your own place, correct?

My wife wants me to do one based on all the flatbread pizzas I make.

More Resturants need environmental control, it’s the number one complaint I hear from all my friends when we go out to eat. Too many hard surfaces and reflections so no one can hear or understand each other.

I’ve thought of going into a business just to cater to these environments. I could hand a card out in just about everyplace around here!
Hahaha, I was kinding

But in the future I can see myself working on sailboats.
Old 30th May 2018
  #47
Gear Guru
 
Thomas W. Bethe's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Wasn't the big thing for a while the "Golden Ratio"

As first determined by the ancient Greeks, the Golden Ratio is a theoretical ratio for room dimensions that results in “”perfect”” room acoustics. This means that no matter where you are in a room, the sound will be balanced and natural, with little interference from standing waves or ringing that may occur in less-than-ideal rooms. The ratio, named phi, of height to width to length of a room to achieve optimal sound in a room is approximately the width 1.6 times the height and the length 2.6 times the height, and was named for the Greek sculptor Phidias. In theory, minimal acoustic treatment should be needed in a room with dimension ratios that matched the formula. However, it may be desirable to acoustically treat one end of the “Golden” room, to be able to have a place in the room where there are fewer reflections, resulting in a less “”live” sound. If it’s not possible to have a room that fits the ratio perfectly, there are ways to achieve similar results. For example, if a room should have a 5-foot ceiling to match the ratio of the wall length and width, apply acoustic treatment to the walls above five feet.*



The uses of this are described in this web site https://www.soundcontrolroom.com/des...ng-studios.php and this one Picking a Room Ratio: Golden or Optimized Ratios >>

*From the WWW.
Old 30th May 2018
  #48
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe View Post
Wasn't the big thing for a while the "Golden Ratio"
Yes there was. tT is now obsolete.

Andre
Old 30th May 2018
  #49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northward View Post
Hahaha, I was kinding

But in the future I can see myself working on sailboats.
If you could fit a pair of ATC 110 and a pair of subs in it, I'd like to make a preorder.
Btw - congrats on the Sterling Sound gig!
Old 30th May 2018
  #50
Gear Guru
 
Thomas W. Bethe's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Not a sail boat but this studio is in a ship. Why a ship? |

We did a recording session in a sail boat tied up to the dock in Vermilion, OH for a client. He played acoustic guitar. He liked the ambience. To many water noises and power boats going by in the lagoon. We had a nice afternoon, had some good food at McGarvey's afterwards and never were able to use any of the tracks. Also the shore power was down to about 95 VAC which was not good considering that we were using a reel to reel tape recorder (the client liked analog). FWIW
Old 30th May 2018
  #51
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe View Post
Not a sail boat but this studio is in a ship. Why a ship? |

We did a recording session in a sail boat tied up to the dock in Vermilion, OH for a client. He played acoustic guitar. He liked the ambience. To many water noises and power boats going by in the lagoon. We had a nice afternoon, had some good food at McGarvey's afterwards and never were able to use any of the tracks. Also the shore power was down to about 95 VAC which was not good considering that we were using a reel to reel tape recorder (the client liked analog). FWIW
Yup. I have no plan to build a studio on a sailboat. Taking care of a sail boat is enough work...
Old 30th May 2018
  #52
Gear Maniac
 
DBarbarulo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northward View Post
If I didn't misunderstand you, actually it's quite the opposite.

Sound stage is negatively influenced by Early Reflections (or any reflection for that matter). There is no RT20/30/60 in small rooms - especially small treated rooms - that' a big misconception: there is no statistically diffused & homogeneous field in these spaces, which is the condition for reverberation. Hence no reverb. If there are still some reflective surfaces in the room, it's all discrete reflections above Schröder, and all pressure behaviour under.

Sabine's equation is very unreliable and is in practice only used if a room is large and has as an average absorption coefficient of max 0.2s. Eyring's formula is better for more absorptive rooms, but also reaches its limits fast.

Using any of these two in a studio will yield incoherent results at best. One of the tools you can use reliably to get time data are ETC and filtered ETC.

Our rooms are very absorptive over the full bandwidth, basically true non-environments in the speaker to engineer/room path. Yet image is very wide, with a strong center, and everything in-between.
As we say in my city: "my face under your feets", means "all the respect for your knowledge".

What i was reporting (maybe i'm wrong and i'll be proud to be corrected) is that an ultra wide sound stage, as seen in some "audiophile" (non professional) setups is based on a stronger interaction with non absorbing surfaces around the speakers and generally in rooms with longer decays than a typical professional studio. The image is kind of augmented both in width and depth perception but the price to pay is less accuracy in transient and frequency response. So i was reporting that "wideness" (augmented stage perception) in "audiophile therms" is kind of related to reverberation of the room.
About RT60 what i found is the .3/.5 range as a reference for post rooms but i can't remember where.

DB

Last edited by DBarbarulo; 30th May 2018 at 07:38 PM..
Old 6th June 2018
  #53
Gear Guru
Quote:
Originally Posted by teebaum View Post


room's are like underware, some people like boxer briefs, other ones love thongs, some traditional briefs - i like lede briefs ;-)
Depends...........
Top Mentioned Products
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump