Small mix-room causes bass problems? Why not use headphones?

Discussion in 'Studio Construction & Acoustics Forum' started by digdug, Mar 28, 2004.

  1. digdug

    digdug

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Hell
    Then why would someone suggest and sell something like this?

    [​IMG]

    I'm pondering whether or not I should purchase some $800-1200 nearfields and either the maxwall or other room treatment systems or stick to mixing with reference headphones. http://headwize.com/articles/lxh2mix_art.htm I could see some other problems with mixing with headphones like not being able to hear phasing problems, but thats nothing I couldnt check on some cheap hifi system...

    It is just a reference after all? I would just have to get to the point where I would be comfortable with my mixes translating to other systems...

    As I stated in another forum my room is about 11x11x8'/968sq'...
  2. Ethan Winer

    Ethan Winer

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2001
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New Milford, CT USA
    Home page:
    Re: Small mix-room causes bass problems? Why not use headpho

    Dug,

    > stick to mixing with reference headphones. <

    You really can't mix accurately with headphones, and you can't learn to make mixes that translate from a tiny control room either. Okay, you can mix with phones or in a small untreated room, but you'll be forever burdened with burning CDs and playing them in the car and elsewhere in order to know what you really have.

    > my room is about 11x11x8' <

    The above applies especially in a room that size and shape. All of this has been written about extensively here over the past year or so, and you can read through past posts. But here's the primary reason you can't learn to make portable mixes in a small, square room: The problem with small and otherwise poor rooms is not an overall increase or decrease in the bass range. Rather, it's the huge number of peaks and deep nulls that riddle the entire low end.

    The graph below shows the response in a typical 10x16 foot untreated room. Your room is smaller and square, and is therefore probably even worse.

    --Ethan

    [​IMG]
  3. digdug

    digdug

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Hell
    Thanks for the reply Ethan, do you happen to have graphs for the same room treated in different percentages of coverage?

    Also does anyone have input on doing work with this edit: or any other full range absorption product:
    [​IMG][/b]
  4. digdug

    digdug

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Hell
    Youll have to excuse me ethan, my room is a bit different than i expected, but i doubt there would be THAT much of a difference...

    12.3' x 11.3' x 8'
  5. Ethan Winer

    Ethan Winer

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2001
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New Milford, CT USA
    Home page:
    Dug,

    > do you happen to have graphs for the same room treated in different percentages of coverage? <

    Yes, but I've never plotted it. The room in the graph above is my partner's control room, measured without any treatment or bass traps. We did measure it again after installing my company's bass traps, and it was markedly improved, but I haven't yet gotten around to plotting the data. Basically the peaks and nulls are both less severe, so the overall response is more flat.

    > does anyone have input on doing work with this ... any other full range absorption product <

    It is well known that adding bass traps will improve the low frequency response, as mentioned above. I'm sure Jeff from Auralex will gladly comment on the suitability of that particular product.

    > 12.3' x 11.3' x 8' <

    Right - similar small size, similar badly skewed low frequency response.

    --Ethan
  6. digdug

    digdug

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Hell
    Thank you for your replys Ethan!
  7. David French

    David French

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Indiana
    Remember, for something to be sold, the important thing is not necessarily that it works; rather, it's that people believe that it works.
  8. TomMaag

    TomMaag Guest

    With that particular max-wall set-up, which is an absorbant room within a room, wouldn't the frequency response actually be relatively flat. Or at least a great improvement? I know you would have issues with the room being so dead, and maybe over-doing the reverb to counter-act it. But that's something you can deal with. Especially if you have no other choice. To me, it seems like a really small dead space to mix in with nearfields, is kind of in-between mixing in headphones and then mixing with monitors in a nice control room. It's not perfectly ideal, but it can be pretty nice.

    Especially if this is not a business, but a personal hobby. And if you only record yourself, it's easier to get used to how what you are hearing in your speakers will sound elsewhere. If you are recording lots of different bands and different styles, then it's much more of an issue. (at least I think I think!)
  9. Ethan Winer

    Ethan Winer

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2001
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New Milford, CT USA
    Home page:
    Tom,

    > wouldn't the frequency response actually be relatively flat. <

    No. If the wall is not massive low frequencies will go right through to the outer walls and reflect back causing all the usual problems. And if the wall is massive it will itself reflect causing the same problems - only worse because the walls are so close to you.

    --Ethan
  10. lovecow

    lovecow

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kansas
    The particular product shown above is quite linear in terms of absorption thanks to the fact that it is not mounted (flush) to a wall and it's over 4" thick.

    Whether it's a total solution for you will depend on your particular application. I.e., with what kind of instrument(s) and with what style(s) of music are you working?
  11. digdug

    digdug

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Hell
    It Stictly a Sound FX Design suite.
  12. lovecow

    lovecow

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kansas
    Dig,

    (BTW: One of my favorite video games of all time!!! :D:D:D:D )

    Things will probably work out great with something like the MAX-Wall system. I would imagine SFX design could involve some considerable LF content. (I'm thinking of explosions and the like.) Therefore, you might also consider some low-end corner treatments for the room as a whole.

    However, the MAX-Wall - or something like it - is bound to be a great product to get you started. Add to that the fact that it's portable and you've got a great system for any off-site foley work you might be doing!

    Good Luck!
  13. TomMaag

    TomMaag Guest

    Ethan,

    you wrote:

    "Tom,

    > wouldn't the frequency response actually be relatively flat. <

    No. If the wall is not massive low frequencies will go right through to the outer walls and reflect back causing all the usual problems. And if the wall is massive it will itself reflect causing the same problems - only worse because the walls are so close to you.

    --Ethan"


    Since this is an absorbant room inside a room, wouldn't there be a lot of opportunity for those low frequencies to be tamed? The panels are 4" thick of foam. The low frequencies will have to go through that, then bounce off the wall and go through it again, right?
  14. Ethan Winer

    Ethan Winer

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2001
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New Milford, CT USA
    Home page:
    Tom,

    > you wrote ... <

    I answered reluctantly, and only because many days had gone by without any comment from Jeff. Now that Jeff is participating he's in a much better position to address this than me.

    > The low frequencies will have to go through that, then bounce off the wall and go through it again, right? <

    Yes, of course all absorbent material gets the benefit of a "round trip" if you think about it.

    --Ethan
  15. lovecow

    lovecow

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kansas
    Tom,

    Short answer: Your assumptions are correct.

    Long answer: I was hoping to find data pertaining to how low the MAX-Walls can actually go in this sort of application. I think I have some. However, the tests were a number of years ago, the files - if they exist - are on ZIP disks, and the only ZIP drive I have access to is at home. Gimme the weekend. If I find anything, I'll post it in the Auralex section here on RO.
  16. lovecow

    lovecow

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kansas
    Tom,

    Just a follow-up. No luck on finding data in the "archives." That doesn't mean they don't exist - just that I still cannot find them. I will keep looking and, as I said, post them to the Auralex group if I can find them.
  17. TomMaag

    TomMaag Guest

Similar Threads: Small mix-room
Forum Title Date
Studio Monitors smaller replacements for jbl 4410s? May 17, 2014
Microphones Forum recording a violin in a small room Mar 26, 2014
Recording Studio Instruments Small waveforms for keyboard tracks Dec 6, 2013
Track Talk Small Orchestration, new Logic Pro X sounds great Imo Aug 12, 2013

Share This Page