The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
More low mids / less high end
Old 3 weeks ago
  #1
Lives for gear
 

More low mids / less high end

Hey,

I have a live room which is about 42 sq. meters, around 4,5m in height. I haven’t measured the RT in there but it’s small. Somewhere around 0,3sec

The room is treated. There’s everything from membrane absorbers (lowest is at 19hz) to diffsorbers, diffusers, space couplers and stone to the part where drums are supposed to be placed.

My problem is that the sound is generally bright, which doesn’t work for drum room mics.

There’s a lot of stone in the room. The cymbals sound a bit irritating, which is somewhat fixed when I put some absorption on the stone.

What I want is to extend the RT60 of the high bass and low mids.

The sound in there can be described as papery, bright. It sounds smaller than what actually is.

Will some more diffusion increase the rt values for the range I want ?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #2
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

ANY materiial that you add will decrease the RT60.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #3
Lives for gear
 
JanZoo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by planck View Post
Hey,

I have a live room which is about 42 sq. meters, around 4,5m in height. I haven’t measured the RT in there but it’s small. Somewhere around 0,3sec

The room is treated. There’s everything from membrane absorbers (lowest is at 19hz) to diffsorbers, diffusers, space couplers and stone to the part where drums are supposed to be placed.

My problem is that the sound is generally bright, which doesn’t work for drum room mics.

There’s a lot of stone in the room. The cymbals sound a bit irritating, which is somewhat fixed when I put some absorption on the stone.

What I want is to extend the RT60 of the high bass and low mids.

The sound in there can be described as papery, bright. It sounds smaller than what actually is.

Will some more diffusion increase the rt values for the range I want ?

I'm wondering, how can a room be treated if you don't have any measures ?

I'm no acoustician, but should the results be checked after treatment ?

Or is it a common practice just to treat it and leave it be ? Could such a room even be called treated without measuring, even if it had billion dollars worth of absorbers, diffusers and other tech, can you get some certificate for that kind of treatment ? Shouldn't you have measurement specification to see if you meet some standards ?

On the other hand, I know that super experienced acousticians know what results to expect when they are building a room from the ground up.

And imo, drawing conclusions about RT60 and FR only by ear, is rather brave.

I understand it's a live room though, but measuring could tell people here what is missing and what to do for the thing you want.

For starters, I would get the cheapest possible measurement mic, do the measuring, post here with pictures of the room and see what would people say...
Old 2 weeks ago
  #5
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JanZoo View Post
I'm wondering, how can a room be treated if you don't have any measures ?

I'm no acoustician, but should the results be checked after treatment ?

Or is it a common practice just to treat it and leave it be ? Could such a room even be called treated without measuring, even if it had billion dollars worth of absorbers, diffusers and other tech, can you get some certificate for that kind of treatment ? Shouldn't you have measurement specification to see if you meet some standards ?

On the other hand, I know that super experienced acousticians know what results to expect when they are building a room from the ground up.

And imo, drawing conclusions about RT60 and FR only by ear, is rather brave.

I understand it's a live room though, but measuring could tell people here what is missing and what to do for the thing you want.

For starters, I would get the cheapest possible measurement mic, do the measuring, post here with pictures of the room and see what would people say...
Hey,

The specific value of RT60 is not really important for this case. What's important is that the general profile of the room is bright.

Yes, the designer is very experienced, I think the room was intended to sound like that, which is in disagreement with my taste.

I do have measurement mics, and will measure it if you want, but I think it will be even better if I upload some audio.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #6
Lives for gear
 

Here's an audio, recorded with a ribbon (LRM-2).

this is about 3 meters from the drums.

I have tried literally every inch of the room. The best spot is pretty close to the drums, figure-8 mics with their null position pointed at the drums, almost as side mics.

I will probably have to make changes to the room, the first thing to obviously try is to remove some of the treatment, there's tons of glass wool in there. Also, cover the PART of the stone (which is situated only in one side of the room, where the drums are supposed to be placed).

My aim is for a more balanced sound (less attenuated low frequencies, 100 and above) and more attenuated highs. Even the overheads don't sound smooth as they are close to the stone (glyn jones works better than anything else).
Attached Files

room.wav (6.05 MB, 238 views)

Old 2 weeks ago
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
Did you check the thread I linked to (and also the posts linked to in that thread …)?
Old 2 weeks ago
  #8
Lives for gear
 
JanZoo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by planck View Post
Hey,

The specific value of RT60 is not really important for this case. What's important is that the general profile of the room is bright.

Yes, the designer is very experienced, I think the room was intended to sound like that, which is in disagreement with my taste.

I do have measurement mics, and will measure it if you want, but I think it will be even better if I upload some audio.
Hi,

I am no acoustician, I'm just a guy interested for room acoustic and following various threads and see how people solve their problems...

I just suggested that some measuring data for people that are acousticians could help them give you advice for the thing you want.


Quote:
Originally Posted by planck View Post
Here's an audio, recorded with a ribbon (LRM-2).

this is about 3 meters from the drums.

I have tried literally every inch of the room. The best spot is pretty close to the drums, figure-8 mics with their null position pointed at the drums, almost as side mics.

I will probably have to make changes to the room, the first thing to obviously try is to remove some of the treatment, there's tons of glass wool in there. Also, cover the PART of the stone (which is situated only in one side of the room, where the drums are supposed to be placed).

My aim is for a more balanced sound (less attenuated low frequencies, 100 and above) and more attenuated highs. Even the overheads don't sound smooth as they are close to the stone (glyn jones works better than anything else).

Just listened to the room recording, sounds nice to me, although I would say that the drummer is hitting the cymbals a bit too hard, a lot of them do though... Have you tried to put some absortion panels behind the drummers just for sake of checking if the crashes still come too bright, to me it really sounds like the drummer is hitting them too hard, a lot of famous producers are talking about that also, that a lot of guys are hitting the cymbals too hard for studio recordings...
Old 2 weeks ago
  #9
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens Eklund View Post
Did you check the thread I linked to (and also the posts linked to in that thread …)?
Hey. Yes, I just did.

There’s a lot of information In there. What I noticed is that adding more diffusion will not help make make room sound bigger (what about Better?)

And that bigger is not only about RT but also about ITD.

I think I have to experiment in there.

@ JanZoo no I disagree, that’s not a good room sound. I can pin point and be specific, the drum shells are not spreading in the room. This happens because there’s a lot of absorption in there (the entire ceiling is filled with glasswool, for example). Also there’s bad irritating high frequency information (5k to 10k) coming from the cymbals. I know it’s the stone that’s doing that because I got significantly better with placing a carpet and covering part of the stone.

I will start by removing some absorption.

Last edited by planck; 2 weeks ago at 11:51 PM..
Old 2 weeks ago
  #10
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JanZoo View Post
Hi,

I am no acoustician, I'm just a guy interested for room acoustic and following various threads and see how people solve their problems...

I just suggested that some measuring data for people that are acousticians could help them give you advice for the thing you want.





Just listened to the room recording, sounds nice to me, although I would say that the drummer is hitting the cymbals a bit too hard, a lot of them do though... Have you tried to put some absortion panels behind the drummers just for sake of checking if the crashes still come too bright, to me it really sounds like the drummer is hitting them too hard, a lot of famous producers are talking about that also, that a lot of guys are hitting the cymbals too hard for studio recordings...
Sure. Cymbals being played loud is a common problem. But having a room that mostly diffuses high frequencies makes it worse. The energy of the snare is absorbed by the room
Old 2 weeks ago
  #11
Lives for gear
 

Btw, the audio you hear was with dark sounding ribbon mics. If I place condensers for room mics, the high frequency information is unbearable (and unworkable for mixing)
Old 2 weeks ago
  #12
Lives for gear
 
JanZoo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by planck View Post
Btw, the audio you hear was with dark sounding ribbon mics. If I place condensers for room mics, the high frequency information is unbearable (and unworkable for mixing)
Yes, I understand, I read what you said and I know ribbons are dark, I do hear that the record doesn't have the extreme top as well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by planck View Post
Sure. Cymbals being played loud is a common problem. But having a room that mostly diffuses high frequencies makes it worse. The energy of the snare is absorbed by the room

That's why I said you should do some measuring testing, I can't see how a room can make such a disbalance in favor to higher freq, but I am no acoustician, I'm just interested in your problem. I just can't picture in my mind how a room could emphasize the highs so much, I would like to see how those graphs look.

So placing few thin (like 10cm) gobos behind the drummer just for the sake of test won't work to tackle the highs ?
Old 2 weeks ago
  #13
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by planck View Post
Hey. Yes, I just did.

There’s a lot of information In there. What I noticed is that adding more diffusion will not help make make room sound bigger (what about Better?)
Possibly. A diffuse return will make it sound nicer, not larger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by planck View Post
And that bigger is not only about RT but also about ITD.
I would say it’s mostly about the ITD.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #14
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by planck View Post
My aim is for a more balanced sound (less attenuated low frequencies, 100 and above) and more attenuated highs. Even the overheads don't sound smooth as they are close to the stone (glyn jones works better than anything else).
I doubt you are going to do yourself any favors by removing absorption and encouraging more modal activity. Instead can you put some thin diffusers or reflectors over the absorption?

Can you not boost the lows with eq? IME it's pretty normal for drum overheads to not have a lot of LF...Encouraging more modal activity might increase bass at some frequencies, at the cost of cutting it at others.

The problem that you have, depending on what frequency you are looking increase, is that the surface needs to be as big as the wavelength you are wanting to reflect. Meaning for 100hz and up, you will need a reflector that is roughly 3.5m by 3.5m. OTOH you should be able to find some light fabrics that will absorb HF without being substantial enough to absorb mids and lows...Getting something to actually diffuse 100hz would be huge.

Alternatively, have you considered a partially faked room sound? If you have speakers in there, you can feed some mics into them, add reverb (emphasizing the low mids) and playback into the room live. I'm can't find it now, but there was a home studio tour for a film composer where they used omni speakers and this type of setup to get his space to sound like a large scoring stage. I don't have any experience with this but it might be worth experimenting with if you have the gear for it already.
Old 1 week ago
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
I doubt you are going to do yourself any favors by removing absorption and encouraging more modal activity. Instead can you put some thin diffusers or reflectors over the absorption?

Can you not boost the lows with eq? IME it's pretty normal for drum overheads to not have a lot of LF...Encouraging more modal activity might increase bass at some frequencies, at the cost of cutting it at others.

The problem that you have, depending on what frequency you are looking increase, is that the surface needs to be as big as the wavelength you are wanting to reflect. Meaning for 100hz and up, you will need a reflector that is roughly 3.5m by 3.5m. OTOH you should be able to find some light fabrics that will absorb HF without being substantial enough to absorb mids and lows...Getting something to actually diffuse 100hz would be huge.

Alternatively, have you considered a partially faked room sound? If you have speakers in there, you can feed some mics into them, add reverb (emphasizing the low mids) and playback into the room live. I'm can't find it now, but there was a home studio tour for a film composer where they used omni speakers and this type of setup to get his space to sound like a large scoring stage. I don't have any experience with this but it might be worth experimenting with if you have the gear for it already.
I see little use in adding reverb via additional speakers in the live room. It won’t extend the ITD-gap, and the added reverb could more easily (and with more control) be added in the mix instead.

Agreed that low frequency treatment should not be removed, but possibly modified to reflect above the modal region (assuming not early reflection points that would shorten the ITD-gap).
Old 1 week ago
  #16
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens Eklund View Post
I see little use in adding reverb via additional speakers in the live room. It won’t extend the ITD-gap, and the added reverb could more easily (and with more control) be added in the mix instead.

Agreed that low frequency treatment should not be removed, but possibly modified to reflect above the modal region (assuming not early reflection points that would shorten the ITD-gap).
Yeah, probably it would depend on the layout of room quite a bit and where speakers could be placed...Omni speakers with the right placement could potentially be used to increase the rooms own reverb (or whatever we call it in this size space), true that it won't extend the ITD gap, but possibly it could be used to tilt the balance towards low mids.

Sort of a thought out of left field here...
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