|
Post by Hexspa on Feb 19, 2018 1:54:20 GMT
Guitar and vocals are no problem. No need for extensive bass treatment. The low frequency extension of those instruments can be handled by conventional treatment. That holds especially true if you plan to use a high pass filter upon recording or mixing. The thing about a 'great sounding live room' is that it needs space to breathe. While there are multiple theories about it, I remember Ethan's rule of thumb for diffusion is 1' recording distance per inch of diffusion. I haven't memorized diffuser function tables but many tend to be around 4" in depth. That means 8' of your width is unusable for 'great sound'. Even so, your room will still have modal problems which will mess up your targeted frequency range. For this, you'll need a fair amount of absorption. This leads me to advise you to just set up an absorbent corner and use that as your spot. For sure you can use diffusion. Done correctly, and in conjunction with absorption, it will minimize boundary interference, contribute to a more spacious and large sound, and complement your controlled absorption efforts. Regarding treating your ceiling, that would probably give you the best result. Whether it needs to be 100% absorbent is up to your targets, budget, and whether you want to employ diffusion or not. You need to prioritize. Like I said, set up a heavily absorbent corner into which you'll record. Guitar amps can be completely surrounded by absorption so long as they're in a reasonably-sized space, such as yours. The rest of the room will hold the rest of the modal treatment in addition to any diffusion. In summary, just prioritize for a good recording spot and let the rest of the room support that. Especially because your needs are so columbid (pigeon or dove-like. Noble yet common). Diffusion optional. Say I have a budget for the fully absorbent ceiling and walls. Would you recommend this if I could install wooden slats or diffusers in key locations to bring some reverb back into the room? Well, we should be careful about the word 'reverb'. I can't speak on slats but even diffusers in a small space probably won't produce much in the way of reverb. Some diffuse reflections, yes. Reverb tails, probably not. In essence, and with a balance of absorption, what controlled reflections and diffusion will do is enhance the sound of the room. It will be akin to placing an 'ambience' reverb patch on an instrument which has the 'tail' slider all the way down. Though I have never treated a room by making the ceiling entirely absorbent, I fathom it's the cheapest and easiest way to getting a usable recording. Beyond usable, the sound will be very focused, uncolored, and responsive to later processing. Remember, if you include room tone into your recording then it's there to stay. If you eliminate room tone then you can add whatever room you want later. Personally, I say go with absorption all the way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 19:50:41 GMT
Say I have a budget for the fully absorbent ceiling and walls. Would you recommend this if I could install wooden slats or diffusers in key locations to bring some reverb back into the room? Well, we should be careful about the word 'reverb'. I can't speak on slats but even diffusers in a small space probably won't produce much in the way of reverb. Some diffuse reflections, yes. Reverb tails, probably not. In essence, and with a balance of absorption, what controlled reflections and diffusion will do is enhance the sound of the room. It will be akin to placing an 'ambience' reverb patch on an instrument which has the 'tail' slider all the way down. Though I have never treated a room by making the ceiling entirely absorbent, I fathom it's the cheapest and easiest way to getting a usable recording. Beyond usable, the sound will be very focused, uncolored, and responsive to later processing. Remember, if you include room tone into your recording then it's there to stay. If you eliminate room tone then you can add whatever room you want later. Personally, I say go with absorption all the way. Yes you are right. I now see that "reverb" was the wrong word for sure. Having just the ceiling as absorbant won't take out all of the sound from the room though will it, I mean if I use diffusion and have reflective surfaces on the remaining 4 walls won't I still have "room sound" and perhaps better room sound at that since the reflections will be farther apart?
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Feb 20, 2018 6:53:40 GMT
Well, we should be careful about the word 'reverb'. I can't speak on slats but even diffusers in a small space probably won't produce much in the way of reverb. Some diffuse reflections, yes. Reverb tails, probably not. In essence, and with a balance of absorption, what controlled reflections and diffusion will do is enhance the sound of the room. It will be akin to placing an 'ambience' reverb patch on an instrument which has the 'tail' slider all the way down. Though I have never treated a room by making the ceiling entirely absorbent, I fathom it's the cheapest and easiest way to getting a usable recording. Beyond usable, the sound will be very focused, uncolored, and responsive to later processing. Remember, if you include room tone into your recording then it's there to stay. If you eliminate room tone then you can add whatever room you want later. Personally, I say go with absorption all the way. Yes you are right. I now see that "reverb" was the wrong word for sure. Having just the ceiling as absorbant won't take out all of the sound from the room though will it, I mean if I use diffusion and have reflective surfaces on the remaining 4 walls won't I still have "room sound" and perhaps better room sound at that since the reflections will be farther apart? For sure, your room will always have a sound. I reckon that anechoic chambers even have a sound, however minuscule and humanly imperceptible. Whether or not there is a sound is one thing but qualifying that sound in terms of 'good or bad' is another. Who can say whether a sound is good or not? That's subjective and comes down to preference, capacity, and education. What can be said is something about predictable physical events. Let's say you have no diffusion and all your walls are 100% absorbent except for one of them. Your source will emit sonic energy which will then bounce off the wall like a huge beach ball and come back to eventually hit you in the face. Talk about destructive interference! In contrast, if you were cover the wall with magic paint that, not only turned the ball into hundreds of smaller balls each containing a fraction of the original's energy, but also scattered them in different directions and even time-released them like a vitamin, you will then see how diffusion effects sound. Just ask yourself which is better: getting sprayed in the face with a blasting hose or the refreshing sensation of a spring mist or drizzle? Maybe it's better to have a magic bucket that converts your balls into sunshine (absorption). Though it's common practice to use magic paint and buckets of potential rainbows, if you want a certain sound then leaving a room completely bare might serve you best.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 17:16:28 GMT
Yes you are right. I now see that "reverb" was the wrong word for sure. Having just the ceiling as absorbant won't take out all of the sound from the room though will it, I mean if I use diffusion and have reflective surfaces on the remaining 4 walls won't I still have "room sound" and perhaps better room sound at that since the reflections will be farther apart? For sure, your room will always have a sound. I reckon that anechoic chambers even have a sound, however minuscule and humanly imperceptible. Whether or not there is a sound is one thing but qualifying that sound in terms of 'good or bad' is another. Who can say whether a sound is good or not? That's subjective and comes down to preference, capacity, and education. What can be said is something about predictable physical events. Let's say you have no diffusion and all your walls are 100% absorbent except for one of them. Your source will emit sonic energy which will then bounce off the wall like a huge beach ball and come back to eventually hit you in the face. Talk about destructive interference! In contrast, if you were cover the wall with magic paint that, not only turned the ball into hundreds of smaller balls each containing a fraction of the original's energy, but also scattered them in different directions and even time-released them like a vitamin, you will then see how diffusion effects sound. Just ask yourself which is better: getting sprayed in the face with a blasting hose or the refreshing sensation of a spring mist or drizzle? Maybe it's better to have a magic bucket that converts your balls into sunshine (absorption). Though it's common practice to use magic paint and buckets of potential rainbows, if you want a certain sound then leaving a room completely bare might serve you best. I agree that good sound is subjective but you can hear when something sounds good. I have recorded in good rooms so I know they sound better than any room in my house. Anyone can hear the difference and say that it is better so yes. But there must be things designers do to the rooms because they know that they will sound good. A beautiful female body may also be subjective but it also isn't I mean, a good body is a good body and we all know when we see one on the beach so...
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Feb 21, 2018 8:43:22 GMT
For sure, your room will always have a sound. I reckon that anechoic chambers even have a sound, however minuscule and humanly imperceptible. Whether or not there is a sound is one thing but qualifying that sound in terms of 'good or bad' is another. Who can say whether a sound is good or not? That's subjective and comes down to preference, capacity, and education. What can be said is something about predictable physical events. Let's say you have no diffusion and all your walls are 100% absorbent except for one of them. Your source will emit sonic energy which will then bounce off the wall like a huge beach ball and come back to eventually hit you in the face. Talk about destructive interference! In contrast, if you were cover the wall with magic paint that, not only turned the ball into hundreds of smaller balls each containing a fraction of the original's energy, but also scattered them in different directions and even time-released them like a vitamin, you will then see how diffusion effects sound. Just ask yourself which is better: getting sprayed in the face with a blasting hose or the refreshing sensation of a spring mist or drizzle? Maybe it's better to have a magic bucket that converts your balls into sunshine (absorption). Though it's common practice to use magic paint and buckets of potential rainbows, if you want a certain sound then leaving a room completely bare might serve you best. I agree that good sound is subjective but you can hear when something sounds good. I have recorded in good rooms so I know they sound better than any room in my house. Anyone can hear the difference and say that it is better so yes. But there must be things designers do to the rooms because they know that they will sound good. A beautiful female body may also be subjective but it also isn't I mean, a good body is a good body and we all know when we see one on the beach so... I'm hearing you say that better sound is obvious. I disagree. Personally, when buying my B&W 602's, I had initially thought they sounded better than another pair. On a different day, I reversed my stance. I find it difficult to generalize about people we don't know. Studio designers likely have a blend of scientific knowledge (acoustics) and aesthetic preference but must also weigh the client's wishes. About physiques: I used to think like what I hear you saying which is, essentially, 'a hot girl is hot to everyone'. Surprisingly, this isn't true. I just linked to a sound on sound video in another thread but here it is again: www.youtube.com/watch?v=sydt50-Cxhc Every room sounds different. You may prefer one more than I do. This hints at the likelihood that some people, for reasons I've already exposed, may prefer the sound of a totally untreated bedroom space in blind listening tests.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2018 16:00:37 GMT
I agree that good sound is subjective but you can hear when something sounds good. I have recorded in good rooms so I know they sound better than any room in my house. Anyone can hear the difference and say that it is better so yes. But there must be things designers do to the rooms because they know that they will sound good. A beautiful female body may also be subjective but it also isn't I mean, a good body is a good body and we all know when we see one on the beach so... I'm hearing you say that better sound is obvious. I disagree. Personally, when buying my B&W 602's, I had initially thought they sounded better than another pair. On a different day, I reversed my stance. I find it difficult to generalize about people we don't know. Studio designers likely have a blend of scientific knowledge (acoustics) and aesthetic preference but must also weigh the client's wishes. About physiques: I used to think like what I hear you saying which is, essentially, 'a hot girl is hot to everyone'. Surprisingly, this isn't true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2018 16:03:25 GMT
I agree that good sound is subjective but you can hear when something sounds good. I have recorded in good rooms so I know they sound better than any room in my house. Anyone can hear the difference and say that it is better so yes. But there must be things designers do to the rooms because they know that they will sound good. A beautiful female body may also be subjective but it also isn't I mean, a good body is a good body and we all know when we see one on the beach so... I'm hearing you say that better sound is obvious. I disagree. Personally, when buying my B&W 602's, I had initially thought they sounded better than another pair. On a different day, I reversed my stance. I find it difficult to generalize about people we don't know. Studio designers likely have a blend of scientific knowledge (acoustics) and aesthetic preference but must also weigh the client's wishes. About physiques: I used to think like what I hear you saying which is, essentially, 'a hot girl is hot to everyone'. Surprisingly, this isn't true. I just linked to a sound on sound video in another thread but here it is again: www.youtube.com/watch?v=sydt50-Cxhc Every room sounds different. You may prefer one more than I do. This hints at the likelihood that some people, for reasons I've already exposed, may prefer the sound of a totally untreated bedroom space in blind listening tests. I am saying better between a professional studio and one that isn't not between two that are both professional. Yes there is a certain sound quality one live room may have over another but that signature is after the fact that the room sounds good. Also, there is a mainstream female body and you might be the different type that won't turn his head when she walks in the room but you are the small percentage of guys like that. A good body is a good body and 90% of guys will agree on it when they see it next to one that just isn't
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Mar 30, 2018 22:11:32 GMT
I'm hearing you say that better sound is obvious. I disagree. Personally, when buying my B&W 602's, I had initially thought they sounded better than another pair. On a different day, I reversed my stance. I find it difficult to generalize about people we don't know. Studio designers likely have a blend of scientific knowledge (acoustics) and aesthetic preference but must also weigh the client's wishes. About physiques: I used to think like what I hear you saying which is, essentially, 'a hot girl is hot to everyone'. Surprisingly, this isn't true. I just linked to a sound on sound video in another thread but here it is again: www.youtube.com/watch?v=sydt50-Cxhc Every room sounds different. You may prefer one more than I do. This hints at the likelihood that some people, for reasons I've already exposed, may prefer the sound of a totally untreated bedroom space in blind listening tests. I am saying better between a professional studio and one that isn't not between two that are both professional. Yes there is a certain sound quality one live room may have over another but that signature is after the fact that the room sounds good. Also, there is a mainstream female body and you might be the different type that won't turn his head when she walks in the room but you are the small percentage of guys like that. A good body is a good body and 90% of guys will agree on it when they see it next to one that just isn't So what's your point? Good sound is obvious to everyone? That's false. If good sound was obvious to everyone then we'd all listen to the same music. We'd all use the same plugins and the same settings. There actually would only be one plugin for any given task. Even in the Cox/D'Antonio book p.36, they verify that some people prefer mixing in an ambient room and some prefer a dead room. Both situations create a different subjective experience. Both are good but not both will give a 100% consensus as better or even subjectively good, which is what your whole fallacious theory is about: the subjective universal 'good sound'. Furthermore, kids wouldn't need to train their ears using pink noise drills because they can hear everything already. You take too much comfort an an imaginary majority and that is blinding you. It's hard to refute your hypothetical points because they're not based on any facts at all. Your positions of 'anyone' and 'most guys' is just like arguing about who would win in a fight, Bruce Lee in his prime or Mike Tyson before he got a coach. Guys do this all the time and, while fun, has no use beyond idle entertainment. Show me facts, research, and evidence because I don't care about dreams and imaginary friends. You say everyone will prefer a "professional" room. First of all, what does that even mean? Professionals work in a variety of rooms. I reckon I can find people who, in an ABX test, will prefer the sound of an untreated room over one that's considered "professional" by any metric. I've heard of so-called audiophiles preferring the sound of an untreated room. If these often revered people are saying it then you can bet on some of the unwashed masses following in their delusions. You're free to believe everyone thinks like you but you'll be wrong. I can't make you reconsider your projections but, if you want to look at things more realistically, you should. The only thing that matters about 'good' or 'not good' when it comes to music is artistic intent. If you have a project that needs a very live room then that will be good. If you need deadness then that will be good. If the two were reversed then even the 'good-sounding live room' will not be good. Sometimes you want your sound to be like it was recorded in a garage! Then that 'bad' garage is now 'good'! Ain't the world a crazy place? I'll accept your theory about this 'universally attractive' body when you show me proof. From what I've seen in research is that the 'ideal body' doesn't exist. It's a cultural projection and it changes over time. What is ideal in Mexico isn't what's ideal in Africa and what's ideal in Africa now isn't what was ideal 100 years ago. Some guys like college girls, some like their women older. Some like brunettes and some aren't so shallow as to mechanically turn their heads because their version of beauty walked in. Water seeks it's own level. In that light, maybe you have surrounded yourself with people just like you. Maybe it's time to take a broader view and stop projecting your dreams onto everyone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2018 7:14:49 GMT
I am saying better between a professional studio and one that isn't not between two that are both professional. Yes there is a certain sound quality one live room may have over another but that signature is after the fact that the room sounds good. Also, there is a mainstream female body and you might be the different type that won't turn his head when she walks in the room but you are the small percentage of guys like that. A good body is a good body and 90% of guys will agree on it when they see it next to one that just isn't So what's your point? Well then we shouldn't even bother hiring studio designers since they will only design rooms that they think sounds good. No sorry, but first their are acoustic design principles then comes preference as to which room sound is prefered for a recording. My first untreated 16 X 8 X 8 room was never going to sound good...ever
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Mar 31, 2018 14:23:09 GMT
Well then we shouldn't even bother hiring studio designers since they will only design rooms that they think sounds good. No sorry, but first their are acoustic design principles then comes preference as to which room sound is prefered for a recording. My first untreated 16 X 8 X 8 room was never going to sound good...ever Yes, now we agree. This is what I had originally said: there are facts and there are opinions. Studio designers don't design rooms that 'sound good'. They design rooms that meet empirical criteria which serve the use case. Those guys, ideally, serve the client. This is part of the reason I'm so entrenched on my opinion. It's never for us to decide what sounds good unless we're the artist or an advising consultant. Even in those situations, we need to weigh the needs and wants of others to the appropriate degree. I completely agree that your rectangular room doesn't meet any desirable metrics and, subjectively, would probably sound like crap to me. Then again, look where you are! You're on The Audio Expert forum. When you said 'anyone' can tell the difference I immediately thought of people who think acoustic treatment makes the room too dead, people with no taste in music or listening skills whatsoever, and similar counter examples. In contrast, that room might be just the thing for a particular need. Recording Industrial music at the New England Conservatory might not serve the music most 'goodly'. Did I mention this yet but Foo Fighters recorded one of their recent albums in Dave's garage. They said it turned out good! Sure, it was probably treated but there's no way a hypothetical garage, treated or not, is going to be any technical match for a well-planned project by any respectable 'studio designer'. I still fundamentally disagree about anything being either 'good' or 'bad' when it comes to audio and sound. There are only conditions which serve specific needs. Ultimately, it always comes down to 'good for x'. Good is in the ear of the beholder. Data is good in every language. Let's at least appreciate the difference.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2018 6:55:13 GMT
Ok so I guess I should change the title to "how to design a live room that meets empirical criteria which serve the use case" although I think less people might read it then I have not built many live rooms so I don't know what I am looking for really. I guess my situation is common since we are just musicians that want a place that sounds "good" for recording a particular instrument. How do I/we go about getting that without having built many rooms or at least recorded in many rooms and even then we might not know what makes them sound good. Aren't there room sizes and room treatment options that most designers can say make for a desirable sounding live room? On other websites I have read that angled surfaces/walls, non symmetrical shapes and larger volumes make better sounding spaces. I guess that this is the kind of info I was looking to find by posting this.
|
|
|
Post by rock on Apr 1, 2018 14:16:11 GMT
"Good" sound is subjective. For a small room, I prefer a deader environment. I believe less of the sound bouncing back off walls allows me to hear the source more accurately, whether that source is a live instrument or a playback speaker. Much of the focus of this forum is small room treatment for accurate listening and playback. This involves acoustic absorption. It's often been said here something like that too much absorption does not cause a problem.
You obviously prefer a livelier room which adds reflected sound to the direct sound. You are not alone but realize that small room reflections will color the direct sound; this could be good or bad depending on your taste. There are infinite possibilities between completely dead and totally live. I suggest you visit some recording studios (you may need to book some time) or other treated spaces like high-end speaker showrooms. Decide which ones you like the best and find out how these rooms are designed and treated. My hope is this may help you determine how you can build and treat your room. Please share your finding with us.
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Apr 1, 2018 17:24:52 GMT
I'm not certain about all the math behind it but, suffice it to say, the smaller the room, the less options you have.
Rock is 100% correct and the majority of people I see online need more treatment, better orientation, better room selection, etc.
What can you do with sound? Re/deflect it, diffuse it, absorb it, and what else? Then you have combinations or reflection/absorption/diffusion.
There are many technical resources available such as the Grammy white paper linked somewhere on this forum, AES guidelines available from the AMROC site, books, articles, videos, etc. This rabbit hole goes as deep as you want, as I wrote in my pdf. If you really want to learn something, you need to have a good reason to do so, such as imminent plans to build a live room.
I think piecemealing this information is a good recipe for conjecture. Rock recommends Build it Like the Pros, which I've never read. I linked above to the Cox/D'Antonio book. Again, I mention the AMROC site which itself links to many goodies.
If you really really want to learn this stuff and all of it's whys and hows then you're going to need to study physics and be advanced in math. Until you do that, you're going to remain here in the cave with the rest of us. I mean, it's a good-sounding cave but all of our options were born from physicists and have just trickled down as best practices and principled understanding.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2018 15:09:01 GMT
Decide which ones you like the best and find out how these rooms are designed and treated. My hope is this may help you determine how you can build and treat your room. Please share your finding with us. For acoustic guitar I think most people will agree that some room sound is better as the instrument interacts with the room. Also, I think you are idea about visiting other studios rooms might not work because my room dimensions and size/geometry will almost certainly be different and those play a part in how the room is treated or how it needs to be treated to get that kind of sound. I could go to another room and say: "oh I like that" but then when I use the same treatment in my room it probably won't sound the same. What do you think?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2018 15:18:43 GMT
If you really really want to learn this stuff and all of it's whys and hows then you're going to need to study physics and be advanced in math. Until you do that, you're going to remain here in the cave with the rest of us. I mean, it's a good-sounding cave but all of our options were born from physicists and have just trickled down as best practices and principled understanding. Not really, I would just like some kind of advice about where to put some treatment. Let's say I have a rectangular room 7 X 5 X 3 and want to add treatment. Where do I start? Should I measure the room first in various positions to see the frequency response or can I start with some default treatment?
|
|