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
Why not "DEAD" room fro mixing and mastering?? Studio Monitors
Old 21st February 2011
  #61
Gear Guru
Tuned

Nice one Jens, I never had a doubt that the theory can be made true in practice. Presumably you used a high efficiency tuned trap. I am a bit curious though. Presumably those graphs were before treatment and after. All the treatment that is, not just the traps behind the speakers? Lupo and I used simple absorption and not thick enough I reckon. It is often suggested that these typical 4 inch traps may cure SBIR. Or Floor reflections for that matter. I am just saying I haven't seen any improvement using 4 inchers, even with airgaps, or out at the speaker or quarter wave point. If anyone has tests showing how a typical panel trap behind a speaker diminished SBIR I would really like to see it. On the other hand Rod Gervais tells of good success with a single 703 panel, two inch I think, close to the speaker not the wall. Perhaps he has the tests still? I will ask him to take a look in here.

DD

Last edited by DanDan; 21st February 2011 at 02:07 AM.. Reason: Nuance.
Old 21st February 2011
  #62
Gear Guru
Second Thoughts

I think my curiosity about the 'behind the speakers' has taken us Off Topic here. My apologies to the OP.
One comment which might stimulate a return to Topic.
I have seen fully reflective front walls and diffusion on front walls.

The SBIR bit is a lot more complex than just the front wall reflection.
There are side walls, floor, ceiling, bounce to speaker, bounce to listener.
I think this is worth a thread. Jens, Lupo, particulary Rod Gervais, and all, I will start an SBIR thread, please join me there later.

DD
Old 21st February 2011
  #63
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SörenHjalmarsson View Post
A
Allow me to explane... When you say first reflections, it sounds to me like you need to treat primary reflections (first order reflections) at the front wall, just like you would sidewalls and ceiling etc... ...which you don't.



Au contraire! The biggest reason for treating the front wall (if you are using free standing speakers) is to reduce SBIR - which leads to LF comb filtering... Broad bandwidth absorption is most effective on the front wall and in corner locations.
Are you contradicting yourself or is there something I'm not understanding?

My point was simply that I have found it best to treat the front wall(for any number of reasons) but to make the back wall diffuse to add life to the sound.

Again, to address the Op's question, do people really think that a totally damped room is ideal for mixing? And again, I have never been in a professional, highly regarded control room that was completely dry or uncomfortably anechoic in any way. But I have been in some Gearslutz control rooms full of all the sound treatments advertised here and found them to be very uncomfortable.

-R
Old 21st February 2011
  #64
Lives for gear
 
Rod Gervais's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SörenHjalmarsson View Post
Au contraire! The biggest reason for treating the front wall (if you are using free standing speakers) is to reduce SBIR - which leads to LF comb filtering... Broad bandwidth absorption is most effective on the front wall and in corner locations.
Sören,

With all due respect I have to disagree.

SBIR (which can occur from any surface near to the speaker, not just the wall behind the speaker) is not a cause of comb filtering.... it causes a constructive/destructive combinations of the signals prior to them reaching the listener.

If measured at the listening position(assuming no other reflections alter the signal) the measured signal will not exhibit comb filtering. It will simply be a change in amplitude

In this regard it is much like a typical room mode - which will (also) not exhibit comb filtering when viewing the data gathered.
Old 21st February 2011
  #65
Lives for gear
 
Rod Gervais's Avatar
 

I have said (more than once) in the past - that there are an awful lot of ways one can make it from A to B..........

The "Right" way is simple - if you design/construct a room (choose your poison) and any engineer can walk into it and mix - and walk out with a mix that translate well in the real world....... then the room works.

However (and I have also said this more than once before) as we discuss these things - let us not reinvent the wheel.........

The rooms we are talking about here are not anechoic rooms - they are semi-anechoic rooms.

Anechoic rooms are an attempt to create a near-field spatial environment where one should not exist.........

The attempt is to create an environment where every doubling of distance will result in a 6dB drop in amplitude - and where (subject to the sensitivity of the measuring equipment of course) the absorption above a certain cutoff point is 100%.

The concept being that there should be no reflectivity.

This is the nature of anything acoustically anechoic - and it is a very uncomfortable (and tiring) experience for anyone working within such a room for any great length in time.

The statement that this is what we experience in the outside world is (for the most part) an inaccurate statement at best......

Walk int the woods and fire a gun and (more often than not) you will hear a reflection of that gun shot.......

Walk into the mountains and yell loudly - and you will hear an echo.........

Although there might be places on the planet where this occurs naturally - for the most part it is not the case.........

The goal (IMHO) for a control room, is to create a space where the resultant signal is relatively flat.

This is NOT to say that all signals we mix should be at the same level - but simply that the signal reaching our ears do not have an over abundance of constructive/destructive interference.

Anyone (with a good set of ears and a knack for mixing) can learn to mix in pretty much any old room.......... regardless of whether it's treated or not.......

But the fact that this can be accomplished does not define "a good room" - which is (IMHO) what the discussion should be about.
Old 21st February 2011
  #66
Lives for gear
 
SörenHjalmarsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
Are you contradicting yourself or is there something I'm not understanding?
NO i was not contradicting myself. heh My first statement was about specular reflections, while Nr 2 was about SBIR - It seems like there might be more to treating SBIR than i thought though (looking forward to reading DD's thread)

Quote:
My point was simply that I have found it best to treat the front wall(for any number of reasons) but to make the back wall diffuse to add life to the sound.
At the very least, front wall trapping will help to attenuate the longitude axial modes - as will back wall trapping...

Quote:
Again, to address the Op's question, do people really think that a totally damped room is ideal for mixing? And again, I have never been in a professional, highly regarded control room that was completely dry or uncomfortably anechoic in any way. But I have been in some Gearslutz control rooms full of all the sound treatments advertised here and found them to be very uncomfortable.
You are talking about amature treatment, but what you have to remember, is that there are also 'professional' designs that aim for a response that is 'effectively anechoic' (anechoic from the speakers point of view) such as the NE and FTB rooms etc... Whether or not you like these designs, is a subjective matter, but the NE rooms have been reported to translate mixes very well and also to be very pleasent to work in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rod Gervais View Post
Sören,

With all due respect I have to disagree.
No worries Mr Gervais, that's what this is all about. heh

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rod Gervais View Post
The rooms we are talking about here are not anechoic rooms - they are semi-anechoic rooms.
Yes! this is the kind of terminology that has been missing during this thread i think, causing confusion about the actual subject...

Quote:
SBIR (which can occur from any surface near to the speaker, not just the wall behind the speaker) is not a cause of comb filtering.... it causes a constructive/destructive combinations of the signals prior to them reaching the listener.

If measured at the listening position(assuming no other reflections alter the signal) the measured signal will not exhibit comb filtering. It will simply be a change in amplitude

In this regard it is much like a typical room mode - which will (also) not exhibit comb filtering when viewing the data gathered.
I agree and this is also what i ment... You quoted me before i had time to refraze my post (some bug prevented me from saving properly the first times ) I would love to hear your opinion on how to treat this phenomena though, but i guess we better save that for DD's thread.


Cheers,
Old 21st February 2011
  #67
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
To the OP, my 2 cents about 'dead' vs 'live' rooms and the some of the confusion about NE and FTB rooms:

NE and FTB rooms are typically rooms where it's really important to indeed differentiate the listener's perceived environment and the speaker's perceived environment. They are intentionally made to be very different. These are not dead rooms and do not feel 'dead' either.

Listener's wise, FTB rooms are based on the idea that the brain treats environmental noise and semantic noise in separate manner and a separate area of the brain. (not to be confused with semantic noise as interpreted in the analysis of language / speech). Depending on the type of (audio) data, the brain makes a decision about how to handle that data. Responses to the data are treated in a hierarchical manner - threat signals raking as the most important data. The semantic data, the one bearing meaning, is treated by the brain in a conscious processing system, while the environmental is usually processed unconsciously (although this last process can be prioritized by the brain if a threat signal appears - any sudden loud noise will do the trick... - and will trigger a conscious reaction).

One's brain is constantly using environmental data (in our area of interest, what we hear and what is called self-noises) to analyze it's environment - it literally constantly calibrates our auditory system to every new environment. So every time one steps into a room, the brain will - in a fast but incredibly complex way - 'probe' the environment, cross-analyse data (is what I see related to what I hear or smell?) and then calibrate (so decide how to treat the data).

So the way we hear / listen constantly adapts to our environment. Some will influence us in very specific ways. And very much change the "frequency response / sensitivity" of our hearing system (one extreme example are 'dead' spaces for ex) and which info is prioritized.

A good thing to know as well is that when it comes to the auditory system, the 'everyday' info collected about the space you are in will be stored in a part of the memory that is called the short-term "implicit / procedural" memory - which means that unless another specific event arrives the brain will not store the data retrieved from a room/environment in the long term memory (again, on the other hand noises you hear the first time you get on a plane are noises that will be stored in the long term memory because the brain is not in a normal state but in a highly stressed / high threat level state. So that noise data IS stored in the long term memory).

So we are usually pretty unable to 'remember' normal spaces we get in everyday - eventhough they do influence our aural perception.

So if we want to make sure mixes translate we have to make sure the brain perceives the space in a certain way, and will basically leave it's sensitivity / frequency analyzer in a 'flat' configuration (or relaxed configuration). Which means no stress should come from the environment.
Which implies "natural environments".

Now, what that term means exactly is likely a subject for a long and never ending debate - so I will not go further with that. But you get the idea.

So, a good room puts the brain in a certain state by sending important cues that allows the brain to calibrate a certain way.

On the purely technical side, these NE and FTB rooms can be seen as some kind of Hemi-Anechoic space, but with a low frequency cut-off frequency that is higher and has a longer roll-in than what you would normally get in a real hemi-anechoic room. In real anechoic rooms the LF cut off is determined roughly when there is more than 10% of energy feedback in the room. In most of them it is at a really low frequency.

But for all these studio control rooms - that frequency is determined by how much and what type of space you can to play with and what tools you have at your disposal (including financial...).

-----------

In short, they are neither dead nor to hemi-anechoic standards if you get into the detail of it. Feedback is way higher than 10% in the low-end (say, under 80Hz, usually much closer to 20%).

And the 'deadness' is only seen by the speakers. which will interact with only a very selected amount of reflective surfaces, usually diffusors or small sub-structural objects like small wood studs in the treatment which mostly account for some edge diffraction. And these are only installed so as to provide specific cues to the brain to help it in this calibrating process. They do influence your room response, and never in a good way if you look purely at the frequency response. But if you take other, actually more meaningful, information and needs in the equation, they become very important tools.

But the listener interacts not only with those few 'selected reflective surfaces' 'seen' by the speakers but also with all the other surfaces that are not 'seen' by the speakers and made intentionally reflective so as to provide the brain with important data about the space.

In FTB rooms, many extra local diffused cues have been added to enhance that important perception of space. Their aim is solely to 'fool' the brain in a way - to believe the space is more "natural" than it really is.

Furthermore, what is called "dead" spaces in studio terms are usually in reality spaces with short response in the HF and MF and a much longer response in the LF. Which is very problematic because it will trigger stress reactions from the brain which will calibrate a certain (wrong for mixing) way - and thus influence your conscious perception of sound in this room/environment. That and other things (unbalanced response) will simply prevent proper translation from that space to a more "natural" space.

But this all only one part of the whole problem with dead spaces. Albeit, a major part.

So, in short, "dead" spaces... don't work.

Hope that this is all not too unclear - it's a big subject with lots of ramifications and not easy to resume in a short post.
Old 21st February 2011
  #68
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northward View Post
Which implies "natural environments".

Now, what that term means exactly is likely a subject for a long and never ending debate - so I will not go further with that. But you get the idea.

Furthermore, what is called "dead" spaces in studio terms are usually in reality spaces with short response in the HF and MF and a much longer response in the LF.

But this all only one part of the whole problem with dead spaces. Albeit, a major part.
Thanks for that detailed post!

I think many of the people on this board are sophisticated enough to mean "dead" when they say "dead," meaning equal decay times throughout the frequency spectrum.

As for what is "natural" versus "dead," I am always curious to find out more about all of the various parts of the whole problem of dead spaces. The never-ending debate about naturalness hasn't led me to the conclusion that any type of liveness necessarily adds anything to the naturalness of a space [in terms of how it allows a mix to translate to other unnatural environments].
Old 21st February 2011
  #69
Lives for gear
 
Hannes_F's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northward View Post
To the OP, my 2 cents about 'dead' vs 'live' rooms and the some of the confusion about NE and FTB rooms
Thanks Thomas, lots of deep understanding on your side obviously.
Old 21st February 2011
  #70
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainchild View Post
I think many of the people on this board are sophisticated enough to mean "dead" when they say "dead," meaning equal decay times throughout the frequency spectrum.
Which is never the case anyway unless we are talking real anechoic rooms (which are huge) and not control rooms. The decay time always goes up a bit (or a lot...) in the LF in studios. Not so many rooms are actually really well balanced in this area.

It's always an area of compromise. And reality check: it's, sadly, expensive to get it right / tight.
Old 21st February 2011
  #71
Gear Guru
Real World

It seems to me that the NE and FTB designs are closest to my own wishes. Unfortunately I haven't had the pleasure of trying either, but hopefully we can fix that soon T...;-)
My own room is a modified domestic room. Some find it uncomfortably dead. Strangely that impression seems to go after the first mix is heard in the car or at home.... Then 'peace' and 'calmness' replace stifling and unnatural. Musicians are notoriously fickle. I can say that, as I am also one. Not, actually a drummer heh heh
I am kind of afraid to go at this room again, even with newly found knowledge etc., because it works so well.

I have a users view on this topic. It comes from experience of what has and what has not worked for me. This comes from my work as a freelance recording and mix engineer using commercial, home, and personal mix rooms. My comments will be biased towards mixing and critical listening, not hanging out, learning or writing musical parts.

Dead is undefined, so let me put my peculiar slant on it. All mix rooms I have worked in are 'dead'. i.e. much deader than any normal modern room. However, some are reminiscent of old style carpeted, wallpapered, multifaceted rooms/furniture.
That memory aside, all dead to differing degrees.

Deadness is unpopular. I accept this fact. However I believe this is not based on results, in terms of mix translation. Sure, for tracking, a 'normal' acoustic is nicer to spend long days in.
I would put natural daylight way ahead as a priority but hey...

For mixing though, dead works for me. I doubt that things added to the mix by Teutonic Footballers would help me at all :-)
I want to make quick sure decisions on what is on the recording. Quick is essential. If the sun is shining in, and the acoustic bloom is wonderful, one could spend all day auditioning reverbs or kick samples....
OR you can put on your HD600's, no room, chose in minutes, check with the speakers, (mostly for width issues) done. If there is little difference, the speakers and room become very trusted.
Quick action, no dithering. More time for the big picture.
Human resources have to be optimally used here, especially attention span. Sure, this type of listening is intense, stressful. Good records are not easy to make. Check out the history of any great recording. A commonly occurring thread seems to be stress, try 'Rumours' by Fleetwood Mac :-) Who said it should be pleasant?


In terms of translation failure, a recurring theme I have found is an inbalance of spectrum.
Too much bass, lack of clarity, or the opposite.
To my ear, flaws in this tonality totally supersede issues of comfort or the more exotic imaging and so on.

At the level of Newell and Thomas it seems likely that the tonal slant issue is dealt with. If they have both succeeded in adding the 'illusion' of liveness without diminishing the purity of hearing into the recording, we are there, this is done. Just as well, those HD600's get a bit hot after an hour or so.....


DD
Old 21st February 2011
  #72
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
I
Human resources have to be optimally used here, especially attention span. Sure, this type of listening is intense, stressful. Good records are not easy to make. Check out the history of any great recording. A commonly occurring thread seems to be stress, try 'Rumours' by Fleetwood Mac :-) Who said it should be pleasant?

All the more reason for the room to be as pleasant an environment as possible. Already too much stress.

"Pleasant" seems a diminutive here. I would go with "emotionally rewarding". At the end of the day, music is about what you feel. If you take a completely clinical and analytic approach to mixing, in a dead room, your mix may translate, but it may not be worth translating.

I'm saying in general, not to you DD. Everyone finds their own compromise and makes it work. I liked your point about how once the band hears how good a finished mix is their perception of the room changes. Absolutely! And let's not forget that a drier, more unforgiving monitoring environment might require the development of more adult skills.

Lots of good food for thought in this thread.

-R
Old 22nd February 2011
  #73
Gear Guru
Soul Food

Indeed, lots of food for thought. I hope the words translate properly here :-)
I am of course playing a bit of the devil's advocate role, with a little extra devil perhaps!
And we are nicely back On Topic.
All good, DD
Old 22nd February 2011
  #74
Lives for gear
 
SörenHjalmarsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rod Gervais View Post
SBIR (which can occur from any surface near to the speaker, not just the wall behind the speaker) is not a cause of comb filtering.... it causes a constructive/destructive combinations of the signals prior to them reaching the listener.
Mr Gervais,

On looking back on your post i have to say that i still dont fully agree or understand. I thought at first that we were talking about different terminology e.g. what happens in a room is not comb filtering but 'polar lobing' or 'acoustic interference' - which then RESULTS in comb filtering(or something like that)... but that is not what you ment i think?

I will continue this discussion in DD's SBIR thread to keep out, but it was mentioned in this thread so i wanted to reply here aswell. I am going to read through DD's thread and see if this has allready been covered there, if it has not, i will ask my question again in more detail, for those of you who are interested...

I will not mention this again during this thread...

-- sorry DD for destroying your 'back On Topic achievement' - please proceed...
Old 22nd February 2011
  #75
Lives for gear
 
Hannes_F's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SörenHjalmarsson View Post
Mr Gervais,

On looking back on your post i have to say that i still dont fully agree or understand.
You need to remember the Huygens principle: Every wall spot that is hit by a sound wave emits a new spherical sound wave. Look at the attached drawing, this is not only true for a slot but also for a reflected wave (in that case the incoming wave would come from below:

Huygens

That way a bass wave can creep around loudspeaker cabinets and is reflected by a wall even in other directions than the specular (ray-like) one.

What happens is this:

  1. The sound wave goes from the speaker to the wall
  2. is reflected towards the speaker
  3. creeps around the cabinet
  4. is re-radiated towards the listener
Attached Thumbnails
Why not "DEAD" room fro mixing and mastering??-300px-refraction_on_an_aperture_-_huygens-fresnel_principle.svg.png  
Old 22nd February 2011
  #76
Lives for gear
 
ritelec's Avatar
 

Wow. I was just reading around to figure out how to make a bass trap or two............ Some great reading in this post. thank you all.




just one quick question please. What does FTB stand for?

Wait don't tell me, I do remember seeing it somewhere.
Old 22nd February 2011
  #77
Lives for gear
 
SörenHjalmarsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannes_F View Post
You need to remember the Huygens principle: Every wall spot that is hit by a sound wave emits a new spherical sound wave. Look at the attached drawing, this is not only true for a slot but also for a reflected wave (in that case the incoming wave would come from below:

Huygens

That way a bass wave can creep around loudspeaker cabinets and is reflected by a wall even in other directions than the specular (ray-like) one.

What happens is this:

  1. The sound wave goes from the speaker to the wall
  2. is reflected towards the speaker
  3. creeps around the cabinet
  4. is re-radiated towards the listener

Thanks Hanne!

Yes, waves travels spherically and bounce back from every direction, but what i fail to see is how they will NOT, eventually, cause comb filtering effects. There is probably something i am missing here... but a detailed description on the behavior of SBIR can be saved for the SBIR thread i think (which i will get down to reading, as soon as i can catch my breath heh)

The phenomena is even described in the link on Huygens principle that you provided Hanne (if my understanding is correct):

"Two small slits interfere destructively when their path lengths differ by λ / 2 (a 180 degrees phase difference). We can calculate (using phasors or a similar wave-addition math) that for three waves from three slits to cancel each other the phases of slits must differ 120 degrees, thus path difference from the screen point to slits must be λ / 3, and so forth. In the limit of approximating the single wide slit with an infinite number of subslits the path length difference between edges of slit must be exactly λ to get complete destructive interference (and so a dark stripe on the screen)."

i.e. Wave interference = Phase cancellations = Comb filtering etc., - at least that's the way i'm reasoning...

If someone wants to comment on this, they can simply quote me here and answer in the SBIR based thread instead - to keep OT.

Cheers,
Old 22nd February 2011
  #78
Lives for gear
 
Hannes_F's Avatar
 

Hi Sören,

Quote:
Originally Posted by SörenHjalmarsson View Post
Yes, waves travels spherically
No, that was not what I was saying if you read in detail. But I agree we should move that over to the SBIR thread. heh
Old 22nd February 2011
  #79
Gear Guru
FTB

ritelec, FTB Front To Back http://www.northwardacoustics.com/
DD
Old 22nd February 2011
  #80
Lives for gear
 
SörenHjalmarsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannes_F View Post
No, that was not what I was saying if you read in detail. But I agree we should move that over to the SBIR thread. heh
I guess you lost me! To be continued... heh
Old 22nd February 2011
  #81
Lives for gear
 
ritelec's Avatar
 

Thank you Dan.
And please confirm that the NE stands for natural environments.

Man, I have the jbl self eq'ing monitors that I calibrated a couple yrs back.
Learning PT, Logic... I was finding all my mixes to be a bit more bassy than I would think I was mixing them at. I went back into the control panel for the speakers and noticed a very large drop in the self eq'ing at about 50hz. I turned off the self eq to the speakers and have been working with them factory flat??

I figure maybe it was time to address my room and that 50hz.(although the bass player who comes down loves it as it is). So here I am. Just went through the primer v2.1, and last night through this post.
Again, some great reading guys. Keep it coming, and thank you.

Rich
Old 22nd February 2011
  #82
Lives for gear
 
SörenHjalmarsson's Avatar
 

Rich,

NE = Non Environment
Old 22nd February 2011
  #83
Gear Guru
Magic

It's covered but I will elaborate slightly for you Rich.

Non Environment is very much to my way of thinking. Pretty much all reflections which might interfere with the direct path from speaker to ear are nuked. Massive full range trapping, not broadband, full range.
The front wall and floor are left fully reflective, fully. Human noise, conversation, gets a floor and front wall bounce, so it doesn't feel scarily dead. This doesn't affect the speaker sound at all. This is a directional scenario. If you take some time and read Thomas' post above you will see similarities.
Philip Newell is a big proponent of the NE room. He developed the concept from earlier pioneers.
It does appear that Thomas has now taken the best of that work on board, then developed it further and added to it, using multiple skill sets as you can see in the writing.

DD
Old 22nd February 2011
  #84
Lives for gear
 
ritelec's Avatar
 

Thank you Soren and Dan,

Yes, I read Thomas' post last night, couple times. Will read again. Pretty intense. Alittle Freuidan. I will lye down on a couch to read it tonight.

I'm off, Much reading to do. I located a local supplier that carries Roxul 16" x 3" Batts. Should I double it to make 6" or will 3"suffice. How do the coefficients of the roxul match up to the 703 (as if I would really know how to equate it).... down load the Rew and figure that out. So much to do. I love this stuff.

Thanks again,

Rich
Old 23rd February 2011
  #85
Lives for gear
 
SörenHjalmarsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ritelec View Post
Yes, I read Thomas' post last night, couple times. Will read again. Pretty intense. Alittle Freuidan. I will lye down on a couch to read it tonight.
Here is some more interesting reading for you Rich: 50 Years of Control Room Design

It will also give a little overview on the subject of "dead" control rooms and how they have evolved into better designs - such as the 'Psychoacoustic' designs and the 'semi-anechoic' designs etc...


Cheers,
Old 23rd February 2011
  #86
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Thanks, that's a good read.

-R
Old 23rd February 2011
  #87
Gear Addict
 

agreed, great article and thanks Soren.
Old 23rd February 2011
  #88
Gear Guru
Roxul

Rich, roxul in general kicks ass. Often better than OC in many ways.
See the details at http://www.bobgolds.com/AbsorptionCoefficients.htm
Andre often recommends the high performing light and very cheap Safe and Sound. There is a balance between density, absorption, thickness, and money here. PM me if you need this clarified and if you do, let me know what is available to you.
Thomas post is very rich in content but quite understandable I reckon.
While he concludes 'dead' doesn't work and I may appear to say the opposite.
Look again, I am being a devil's advocate. I call them all 'dead' relative to the real rooms we live and listen in.
He means really dead. His own and the NE designs add life to the room for the humans, without interfering with the direct sound from the speaker. It is directional. Perfect compromise IMHO. Cake and eating it.
Thanks for that link Soren.
DD
Old 23rd February 2011
  #89
Lives for gear
 
ritelec's Avatar
 

I'm absorbing.
Thank you for all the help.
I'll be back.
Old 23rd February 2011
  #90
Lives for gear
 
SörenHjalmarsson's Avatar
 

You are welcome guys!

I would just like to ad to the introduction of that article, which states that a control room should mimic that of the average living room i.e. the end consumers listening environment.

Experience has shown that this is not necessarily the case - and that the semi-anechoic models, translate well to more conventional rooms. (kind of what DD has been trying to say i think)

Some read on that aswell: Recording Studio Design - Google Böcker
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
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
lpettipoole / So much gear, so little time
78
thethrillfactor / So much gear, so little time
71
JDavisNJ / Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc
8
centurymantra / So much gear, so little time
12

Forum Jump
Forum Jump