There's an interesting thread running in the Acoustic Music forum titled "Recording equipment doesn't matter". I have been following it with interest.
recording-equipment-doesnt-matter
I am wondering how the rest of you feel?
Of course most of you know I think it does. The one thing I keep returning to in my thought process is, "Why do people who have a lot of nice gear seem to think equipment does matter and why do people who don't have it think it doesn't, aside from the obvious ... that if someone didn't think it mattered, they wouldn't go out and buy it?
Would the people who aren't using high-endstuff, use it if they could, or is it really a choice of "I don't really think it matters"?
Do the people who have great gear know or hear something everyone else doesn't, or are they all suffering from some "disease" that the people who have only used "affordable" gear are immune to? I know it sounds a bit snobbish and elitist. I don't mean it to be.
Of course, the performances and talent level on both sides of the glass have to be there first. The question I always ask is "Why are you recording? Is it because you have (a) great song(s), or is it because you just want to record? I submit the latter is a lousy reason, other than in the context of education. If some of you think I am a snob when it comes to gear, you should hear / see what I think about songs, performance and arraignments. I expect even more from the talent than I do the gear. This is part of the reason I am not so active in commercial recording any longer. I am very frustrated / disappointed / disgusted at how shallow the talent pool has become.
One reason I look upon the past as the "Golden Age of Recording", is I feel for the most part, there was a "weeding out" of untalented people who really had no business recording. In those times, recording studios were so expensive to build and to book time in, the most cost efficient way to make a record was to bring in a load of very talented musicians, like "The Funk Brothers", "The Swampers" or "The Wrecking Crew" and record everything in one pass. It was not uncommon in those times to record 3 or four sides in a 4 hour date. Record companies were the primary clients and a lot of them like Atlantic Records were run by music lovers and composers, who really knew talent when they saw it. I personally feel that a lot of those records were some of the best pop music ever recorded. I doubt that anything that good will ever transpire again, given the current trends.
But things change. The delivery systems are different these days. In the 50's and 60's vinyl and AM radio were king ... Quality at the initial stages was an absolute requirement in order to get an end product that was acceptable after all the loss during mixing, mastering, duplication and broadcast processes.
These days with digital transfers and broadcasting, loss is not so much an issue. Along with that the miniaturization of electronics and digital recording has put reasonably decent tools in the hands of almost anyone who decides that recording would be a good alternative to a "real job". Has this been a good or bad thing?
Still, I am wondering why the audio community seems so polarized when it comes to this issue? Is it arrogance or ignorance or something else?
I hope that some experienced pros as well as novice and experienced home recordists will chime in here. For this to be a valid exchange, we need to hear from all areas of the recording community.
In advance, thanks for any comments any of you may have. I hope to recuse myself from the rest of this, I am happy just to initiate the discussion, so please don't address any comments directly at me unless absolutely necessary.
Kurt
Comments
I just want you guys to see how utterly rediculouse this topic i
I just want you guys to see how utterly rediculouse this topic is, becouse we can go on and on about it, but the bottom line remains the same: its just too subjective. That is what i like about this form of industry, there is no such standard to what you have. You just have to go with what works.
i agree with you all on certain points, but weather you can do a lot with a little on a tight budget or have the money and ability to record somthing crisp, punchy and clear on the hi-end stuff, it just comes down to a matter of taste.
If I might put in my two cents... Recording engineer I am not,
If I might put in my two cents... Recording engineer I am not, but from my experience with different instruments in many different situations and even my own ameteur recording experiences, I can say that it isn't the price of the gear that makes the difference, it's having and using the RIGHT gear for the task at hand. There are many $4,000 guitars out there that would sound downright awful for the style of music I record, and sometimes the cheap mic. just works the best for the task at hand. I'd say carefully consider the type of music you're recording (or playing), look at the gear that similar bands and engineers use for those setups, and follow that route. That's my opinion, at least.
im a newb to recording and well, i agree gear does matter..my re
im a newb to recording and well, i agree gear does matter..my refrance cd had something to it. i just couldnt get with my setup..i get good recordings but not what i was hearing on my refrence cd..i got blasted here and everyone was saying that it was just me me..i finaly went to a local studio and payed a pro for an hour of his time..come to find out its time ineed to take it to the next level..we layed it out to i need to get better preamps..and converters..a cadilac is no rolls royce
read all the thread in one breathe, wow thank your for info it's
read all the thread in one breathe, wow thank your for info it's very curious and useful
_________________
...With love to [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.fastglit…"]myspace glitter graphics[/]="http://www.fastglit…"]myspace glitter graphics[/]...
In short, no, equipment doesn't matter so much these days. Even
In short, no, equipment doesn't matter so much these days. Even cheap gear is still acceptable sound quality, If the songwritting and performance is spot on, the song will be good. However, gear will help you acheive a greater level of sound quality with more workflow ease, especially if it all works together proberly... Also, usually people with nice gear have stepped to that level overtime with experience, so they know how to use it. I've heard musicians go to a pro studio to record with top gear and the album doesn't come out sounding good; and I've heard guys recording with v-drums and Logic make amazing sounding music.
The low-end quality of equipment these days outperforms any PA e
The low-end quality of equipment these days outperforms any PA equipment of just 10 years ago. Even the so-called crappy equipment in experienced hands will yield a professional product. So I don't have any problems with the worst crappy equipment and obtaining marvelous sounding recordings. That has to do with your knowledge and really has nothing to do with the equipment. Sure, the best equipment will have a better sound than the crappy equipment but with a professional like myself, one doesn't produce any crappy sound even with crappy equipment. That comes from understanding how the equipment works or doesn't work. So it's not a known fact except the fact is, that's incorrect. Some people think that condenser microphones are required for professional sound. That too is an incorrect misconception. In fact, their cheap $100 US SHURE SM57/58 is one of the greatest recording microphones ever invented. It's far outperforms any crappy condenser microphone by anyone. And I'm not a beginner at this shelling out this information. I am a + forty-year professional at this. So it ain't the equipment, it's the technique in the usage thereof. If you considered noise or hiss to be unprofessional sounding, you never worked with analog tape on a $36,000, 24 track machine. Besides, most anything you hear on headphones doesn't necessarily come out of speakers that way. Everything is exaggerated in headphones. You really can't mix worth a damn through headphones. You need some kind of control room monitors, even cheap ones and I'm not talking about computer speakers. Only then can you make proper evaluations. Otherwise it's all beginner do do, rife with operator error. Which is to be expected from any beginner. Better sound comes with time and not necessarily with better equipment. It's all about your technique and not the gear. I regularly make wonderful recordings with entry-level equipment that my friends own for them. At the same time, they get important lessons on the use of their gear. After a short while, they understand fully what I've been talking about and doing. And that's when you become a professional audio person.
Nasty old teacherin
Mx. Remy Ann David
Let me be a little more specific. For instance, an incredible si
Let me be a little more specific. For instance, an incredible singer-songwriter friend of mine has a crappy Beringer 6 XLR input mixer/amplifier PA amplifier device. I've made crazy good recordings on this general purpose, entry-level gizmo with a few SHURE Beta 58's/SM58's to its stereo analog recording output while also feeding her PA speakers. I've used it for a couple of her cable TV appearances, live performances, home studio recordings. Most engineers are generally abhorrent in their perception of the quality of this device. But it's 100% totally adequate albeit, it sure as heck doesn't sound like my Neve/API stuff. She can get pretty gutsy on her vocals and so, I had to engage the pad switch for her Beta 58 vocal microphone to prevent overloading the microphone preamp. I think as a woman, she was always a little ambivalent about using a pad? Unfortunately, for some female singers... a pad is necessary even if they never liked using those things, LOL. So the trade-off is a slightly higher but generally imperceptible increase in noise which is far more desirable sounding than clipped overloading. It's not necessarily a piece of equipment I would suggest for studio use but that's all she has. So one must understand its limitations to obtain maximum operational performance. And the recordings I made of her with that have been utilized with some video I've also shot of her. A couple of documentary filmmakers have already won some film festivals with music audio (along with my video) recorded upon that Beringer. Because the recording is good, clean, undistorted along with some of its built-in reverb and other digital effects built-in from the same cheap Beringer PA mixer/amplifier. And it's not noisy. It's not low phi as I also made sure there would be no distortion. People actually really enjoyed the sound of her acoustic guitar. Well, the guitar had a direct output which I also supplemented with a pair of SM58's and it sounds crazy good. This is certainly not my favorite PA nor recording device to utilize but it's 100% adequate and can still deliver a professional product. One of the primary reasons for that is I understand it's operational limitations. So I'm not really limited by its limitations. Most folks thinks this device is lackluster and incapable of delivering professional results. That's only because they are unable to deliver professional results. I'm not unable and as a result, professional results are obtained based upon the knowledge of the guts of the gear. No, I don't think it's stellar sounding and it wouldn't be my personal choice for recording but it's still operationally more than adequate. It's adequate because it works. It wouldn't be adequate if it didn't work but it works just fine and so it's 100% usable. Distorted tracks and distortion in general generally indicates a lack of experience, understanding, technique. So when folks get distortion, it makes it much easier for them to blame the equipment than their lack of capabilities or understanding. So you work with what you have until your results are professional sounding. Only then should you think about moving up in your equipment selections. It's not what you got but what you do with it that counts the most. Sure, I could've brought out my API 3124's, and better microphones, all that stuff. However, that's not what she was asking of me to do nor was I being paid for the additional bother. So I simply used what she already had. She has loved my live recordings of her I made with my Sphere/API/Neve equipped truck over the past 20 years. She was quite pleased however, when I was able to demonstrate the quality level obtainable with her little $400 PA gizmo. No, it doesn't have to be Neve/API/Sphere or any other high-end piece of equipment to obtain professional quality. That only makes something that already sounds particularly good particularly better. Without a frame of reference to compare to, it's 100% adequate.
Miracle worker
Mx. Remy Ann David
Remy... Any advice on how to get the best possible recording ou
Remy...
Any advice on how to get the best possible recording out of my new device I just acquired? I'm having a bit of difficulty with the high-end and lows:
[="http://www.webster-…"]Webster Chicago
Kapt.Krunchsmoke
(PS...yes, equipment matters...to some extent.)
Those wire recorders are one of the few recorders that I have ne
Those wire recorders are one of the few recorders that I have never possessed myself. They didn't use the AC bias that the Germans perfected. I understand they were truly god-awful sounding albeit it was a new technology in its day and the forerunner of magnetic recording. I've never actually seen nor even heard one. Though I've twisted up quite a few wires in my day and probably would have been a good editor utilizing those as well.
You are so funny Kapt.... Need some help with the high-end and lows, LOL. Yup, you sure would be with one of those.
And I thought I was the smart ass here? Stealing my thunder are you?
Mx. Remy Ann David
Yeah! And, I like the first line of the ad: "Of all the mediums
Yeah! And, I like the first line of the ad: "Of all the mediums of magnetic recording, wire still remains at the top of the list in popularity and the Webcor 288 wire recorder is the reason for it." Gotta wonder how bad the others were at that time, for that to be so superior. Actually...I thought wire recorders WERE the first "magnetic recording" medium, and then they figured they could glop some iron particles onto a wider flat length of thin plastic for more surface area! What in the world were they competing with at that time? I guess maybe the Magnetophone? Kapt.Krunch
Well, you know the first recording tape wasn't plastic (Acetate)
Well, you know the first recording tape wasn't plastic (Acetate). It was 1/4 inch paper with red barn paint. Iron oxide was used to create the red coloring of the paint. I believe there were some recorders built not using AC bias. I have been told their audio was virtually unusable. Apparently the wires magnetic properties were better than the barn paint and wouldn't tear. They were rather adequate for dictation purposes but was still a novelty in its day.
Nothing sounds like a Scully 280 with germanium transistors
Mx. Remy Ann David
So you would define crappy equipment as something like Beringer?
So you would define crappy equipment as something like Beringer? While it may be crap, it's still 100% usable. We are talking entry-level folks here along with their entry-level equipment. Professional results are still attainable albeit it may not have the sweetness of something that costs 10 to 100 times more. Now if you're talking about using the mic preamp in some old cassette decks plugged into a internal early generation Sound Blaster card I'd have to agree with you on that.
Crap knocker
Mx. Remy Ann David
RemyRAD, post: 384142 wrote: So you would define crappy equipmen
RemyRAD, post: 384142 wrote: So you would define crappy equipment as something like Beringer? While it may be crap, it's still 100% usable. We are talking entry-level folks Remy Ann David
My main beef with Behringer is not that it's cheap and not great-sounding. Really can't expect great sound from cheap.
My main problem is that they are cheap and completely UNRELIABLE. Their mixers, amps and PA mixer/amps seem to have serious reliability issues. It's a sham that something with such a reputation for widespread unreliability continues to be sold from legitimate retailers. All these big-name retailers should hold Behringer's feet to the fire about the well-known reliability issues. If they were cheap and not that great-sounding...but actually lasted for a while without puffing out the "magic smoke"...their sound-quality issues could be forgiven.
You know something is dubious about their intent when they put yellow-orangy LEDs behind non-glowing tubes in a product to make them appear to be lit up.
Behringer quality sucks. And, on top of that, they aren't helpful with providing repair info (schematics, etc.) for all the crap they KNOW is breaking down en masse. (It's like they are trying to protect their "proprietary circuitry"...that they ripped off from others.)
The ONLY Behringer device I own (and bought used, in perfect condition) is the FCB1010 MIDI Controller....and I would never consider using IT on the road (unless I had another one or two as backup). The only reason I have THAT is that there is nothing else that does quite what it does, at least in the $500-below range. It comes in very handy for hands free effects manipulation in the DAW/hardware devices (with the two pedals). Still, I'm gentle with it (socks only...no shoes), and wouldn't trust it on a paying gig. That's the ONLY Behringer product I'd ever recommend, and that's only if needed for purposes such as mine...and THAT would be tempered with a warning about handling and the company's widespread reliability issues.
Here's a story from about a year ago. A buddy of mine found a Behringer 4x10 bass cab sitting out by the neighbor's trash. (The neighbor kids (teens) practiced hard rock/metal in a large ramshackle shed). Anyway, he asked one of the kids "You throwing this away?" The kid said "Yeah..the speakers are blown."
So, my friend took it home, and called me asking if I wanted it. I said "Maybe. I'll bring over my cordless drill, solder iron, bass head and tools and check it out. I got there and ohm'ed it out, and it was reading about 1/2 the stated rating. I disassembled the thing and found a cold-solder joint to one of the sets of 2-10s (it's a series/parallel setup). I cleaned and re-soldered every crappy Chinese-slave-labor-soldered joint in the thing (including the crossover components to the tweeter). Re-tightened all the screws. Removed the cheap plastic silver "rattle rings" from the front...and the Behringer nameplate. (I felt the cab might feel better about itself if it wasn't displaying it's dubious heritage for all the world to see.)
Plugged in the amp head, cranked it up...and it didn't sound half bad. Not nearly as good as my Acme LowB4, but usable, and it was taking a bit of a pounding without giving up much. Certainly better than what I suspect was the popping and crackling of a rapidly-intermittent cold-soldered joint that made them think the speakers were blown.
Anyway...we took it back over to them. "Hey...I fixed this thing. You still want to give it away, or do you want it back?"
"You FIXED it? It WORKS? COOL, MAN! Thanks!" Then I explained what I did, and why I removed those stupid rings and nameplate.
I didn't really want it, anyway. It's still a Behringer. Had it been a more desirable cab? I might have struggled a bit more about giving it...but I still would have. They're just kids. And...they don't play half-bad (they seem to have a special fondness for old Sabbath...which I can admire, being an older 'geezer' myself)! Give'em a break. 1 1/2 hours worth of work to make some kids happy? Why not?
Kapt.Krunch
Definitely your good deed for the day, Kapt. I agree about the
Definitely your good deed for the day, Kapt. I agree about the reliability problems. But you have to hand it to Behringer. There is a lot of money to be made off of musicians with no patience and no financial sense. (I always wonder how much money GE capital makes from those no interest credit cards for Sweetwater.)
I've had sort of the opposite take on Peavey's live sound gear which in my experience was pretty low quality sound in a very tough package. A lot of bands would get to the point where they were almost begging it to break down so they could replace it. (Not sure that's still the case. I haven't worked with that stuff in a long while.)
RemyRAD, post: 384142 wrote: So you would define crappy equipmen
RemyRAD, post: 384142 wrote: So you would define crappy equipment as something like Beringer? While it may be crap, it's still 100% usable. We are talking entry-level folks here along with their entry-level equipment. Professional results are still attainable albeit it may not have the sweetness of something that costs 10 to 100 times more. Now if you're talking about using the mic preamp in some old cassette decks plugged into a internal early generation Sound Blaster card I'd have to agree with you on that.
I agree with you here, but I'll add that if you have to use cheap gear use as little of it as possible, and use it as "lightly" as possible. If you are using a Behringer (or equivalent, or even a little better) mixer/converter don't push the preamps and keep the recording levels low. A little noise is better than the distortion of cheap chips. If you have to use a cheap mic use an SM57/58. Don't buy a cheap outboard compressor. Don't buy a cheap outboard EQ. Do as much as you can in the box. (All of this hybrid talk is among people who have a six-figure (or more) investment in equipment.)
I learned a lot of this by listening to Remy and trying her suggestions, so I don't think this contradicts anything she said - just puts a different spin on it. I also don't think it disagrees with Kapt. Just because you CAN get reasonable results with (working) crappy gear doesn't mean it's a good investment. Wait, save your pennies. Buy better stuff.
BobRogers, post: 384360 wrote: I agree with you here, but I'll a
BobRogers, post: 384360 wrote: I agree with you here, but I'll add that if you have to use cheap gear use as little of it as possible, and use it as "lightly" as possible. If you are using a Behringer (or equivalent, or even a little better) mixer/converter don't push the preamps and keep the recording levels low. A little noise is better than the distortion of cheap chips. If you have to use a cheap mic use an SM57/58. Don't buy a cheap outboard compressor. Don't buy a cheap outboard EQ. Do as much as you can in the box. (All of this hybrid talk is among people who have a six-figure (or more) investment in equipment.)
I learned a lot of this by listening to Remy and trying her suggestions, so I don't think this contradicts anything she said - just puts a different spin on it. I also don't think it disagrees with Kapt. Just because you CAN get reasonable results with (working) crappy gear doesn't mean it's a good investment. Wait, save your pennies. Buy better stuff.
Agreed
Equipment can make things easier (and I have some significant ge
Equipment can make things easier (and I have some significant gear) but the only equipment that you really need are the ones mounted on the sides of your head, ear trainning, and:
1. A clean microphone preamplifier
2. A clean microphone
(and this is by far the most important thing other than your ears)
3. A room and monitors you can trust
When I am teaching an audio class the first assignment I give to my students is to require them to cut a band (no less than four pieces+vocals) and I allow them only two microphones and two microphone preamplifiers not to exceed a value of $100.00 per channel. You would be amazed at the results that can be achieved with no more than this...
Paramadman :smile:
Paramadman, post: 385834 wrote: Equipment can make things easier
Paramadman, post: 385834 wrote: Equipment can make things easier (and I have some significant gear) but the only equipment that you really need are the ones mounted on the sides of your head, ear training, and:
1. A clean microphone preamplifier
2. A clean microphone
(and this is by far the most important thing other than your ears)
3. A room and monitors you can trustWhen I am teaching an audio class the first assignment I give to my students is to require them to cut a band (no less than four pieces+vocals) and I allow them only two microphones and two microphone preamplifiers not to exceed a value of $100.00 per channel. You would be amazed at the results that can be achieved with no more than this...
Paramadman :smile:
Sounds about right, but just how much more amazing would it sound if you had top tier gear?
The answer to your question is, how do you know what you're list
The answer to your question is, how do you know what you're listening to? Top tier professional gear gives you no fear. There was a young man from Nantucket whose gear was so bad he said F U C K it. He said with a leer while wiping his rear I need more head room in here.
Good stuff in bad hands sounds like it
Mx. Remy Ann David
jasonthomas, post: 386430 wrote: Sounds about right, but just ho
jasonthomas, post: 386430 wrote: Sounds about right, but just how much more amazing would it sound if you had top tier gear?
No more amazing than your ears, room and monitors will allow. The worst sounding album I ever heard was recorded on a Studer 24 track through a Neve 8058. The control room sucked. The monitors sucked, and (worst of all) the "engineer" (and I use the term lightly for lack of another) had ears of solid iron...
Paramadman :wink:
Paramadman, post: 386472 wrote: No more amazing than your ears,
Paramadman, post: 386472 wrote: No more amazing than your ears, room and monitors will allow. The worst sounding album I ever heard was recorded on a Studer 24 track through a Neve 8058. The control room sucked. The monitors sucked, and (worst of all) the "engineer" (and I use the term lightly for lack of another) had ears of solid iron...
Paramadman :wink:
Sounds like a total catastrophe.
How can a control room with a Studer & a Neve possibly suck? The
How can a control room with a Studer & a Neve possibly suck? The engineer maybe? The control room acoustics, maybe? But no Studer and no Neve really sucks. It might for lack of proper upkeep and maintenance?
Now the speakers... yeah, the speakers... can suck. Case in point... back at NBC, 1983, our engineering manager liked his consumer oriented ADS Speakers. So he installed those in our brand-new control room (with a custom Neve) and the production control room (with a Studer console). Now the speakers sounded quite good initially in comparison to the JBL's & RCA speakers we used in the previous control room I built. OMG! The ear fatigue one would get from these " better " sounding speakers within a couple of hours came upon you like a car wreck. That coupled with the fact, the tweeters kept blowing out, regularly, forced us engineers to demand the reinstallation of JBL's. And then we were all happy again. And of course, I got my way. Also his specifications for the custom-built Neve Broadcast Board was a piece of crap in comparison to the custom-built API Broadcast Board I had designed and built years earlier. The Neve was a piece of crap because his specifications were to make it nearly identical to the API version I had built. Problem was... Siemens/Neve indicated they did not build their broadcast consoles that way. It didn't matter... Scott wanted it that way. I was rather flattered by that and at the same time was really quite shocked at how lousy this particular Neve Broadcast Console actually was. It didn't last either. Less than five years later, it was happily dumped into the dumpster. One of the few dumpster items I didn't bother to dive for and the other TV Neve also. They weren't built by Rupert. They were closer to a Beringer than a Neve and bingo, disposable. Built the same way. But cost 10 times as much. 10? Sorry, 1000 times as much. 10,000? Anyway... gone in the anal's of history.
Siemens Neve's were all wet.
Mx. Remy Ann David
RemyRAD, post: 386818 wrote: How can a control room with a Stude
RemyRAD, post: 386818 wrote: How can a control room with a Studer & a Neve possibly suck? The engineer maybe? The control room acoustics, maybe? But no Studer and no Neve really sucks. It might for lack of proper upkeep and maintenance?
Mx. Remy Ann David
A control room can suck acoustically no matter what its equipment but this is usually (almost always) a direct result of a studio owner self-designing a room without the mathematical chops, experience and physical insight to do so effectively—and this, inevitably, leads to disaster because if you cannot trust what you hear (and this can be something as simple as failure to compensate for the differences between the tacking rooms initial time-delay gap and that of the control room) will cause the engineer to hear spurious information about what is actually being recorded. Other common mistakes are made by allowing aesthetic* considerations to overrule functionality or a failure to understand that control room monitors can be adversely affected by the presence of a large console surface, the placement of mid-field and near-field between them and studio mains, or (absolutely deadly) failure to properly provide for bass trapping in the correct frequency range with close attention to the “Q” (quality factor) so that it removes only that bandwidth necessary to notch a problem frequency between two potentially flatter plateaus, or only below a certain frequency that, like an electronic crossover, falls off sharply as a function of frequency, and (very often overlooked) control of any low-mid resonance/RT60. Any overly long resonance in the 100Hz – 300Hz range is (to me) the most destructive single error one can make in any room as it colors precisely those frequencies where power in audio is to be found. A large one will cause an engineer silly enough to trust the room to either roll off in those frequency ranges or (worse) boost at their reciprocals in the high mids. Need I tell you the result of too much energy in the 2kHz –10kHz range? It’s bad enough on an analog recording; how much worse is it on a digital one?
Now, this is not to say that all owner-designed rooms suck. On the contrary, I've seen many rooms designed by audio engineers that had good, even very good, acoustics. But for most people contemplating construction of a new studio—all newbie’s, frankly—it is more wise (and ultimately less costly) to use an experienced acoustician for the job—and to do so before purchase/renting and renovation of a building can save you literally tens—to—hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on the mistakes possible to one not schooled in the science of acoustics. A professional (such as myself) has the math, physical insight and long experience that can identify the problems inherent in any potential space BEFORE you spend perfectly good money on a room so difficult to tame that it can quickly become cost prohibitive. The most common mistake I’ve encountered is for the studio owner to pick a room for conversion that has insufficient ceiling height to allow for proper floating of a room-within-a-room, and such isolation is more important than almost any other consideration if one wishes to be able to trust ones ears in the room in question. Another problem I find is created by picking a space for a control room with insufficient cubic footage for the purpose; although this can sometimes be addressed with modern diffusive elements it can be space inefficient and leave a control room feeling claustrophobic. Some examples of acoustical treatments that can sometimes help a technically too-small space are:
1.) Quadratic residue diffusors/diffractals (diffractals are a diffusor within a diffuser usually 2 or 3 QRD’s designed to crossover one from the other and each deals with its own set of higher or lower frequencies more efficiently than any single element) but, as good as they are, they require careful selection amongst several possible sequences (derived using the formula well depth proportionality factor equals n² modulo p, where n is a positive integer and p is a prime number) to be most effective and such selection takes experience even more than physics training.
2.) primitive root diffusors (which are 2-dimensional diffusion elements derived using the formula well depth proportionality factor = gn modulo p, where p is a prime number and g is the least primitive root of p, which are asymmetrical unlike QRD’s which are highly symmetrical) such as RPG’s Skyline series can be effective but usually are limited in bandwidth compared to QRD’s.
3.) Any one of several other mathematically determined well depth proportionality ratio elements.
4.) And (an oldie but a goodie) which is least expensive of all these choices are polycylindrical elements and these are a very good choice for a too small control room space as they are both lighter than the others I’ve mentioned and also excellent at trapping the inevitable low frequency standing-waves inherent in any room but which are especially bad in smaller ones. (I should add about poly’s that they are more inexpensive when built/designed by the owner rather than ordered premade. However, buying them premade from ASC (Acoustic Sciences Corp) as Tube Traps® is smart because although they are more costly than self-built units I strongly recommend both Tube Traps and ASC, as the product is excellent and their designer Arthur Noxon, P.E. is, frankly, a genius in wave mechanics, and his advice will be well worth the cost as the results are certain to be excellent.)
Now, the construction cost of such panels can be extremely high (for an especially bad choice of room many, many thousands of dollars) and unless you understand heavy construction techniques well you run the risk of having several hundred pounds of MDF, or other material, come crashing down on your (or a clients) head.
This is generally a bad thing and one reason lawyers get rich…
This is how a room can be beautifully equipped yet be almost useless for tracking, and why I strongly suggest anyone planning to build a new studio contact the professional of your choice (me if you wish, but there are many others) to help in everything from building/site selection to acoustical treatment design for each individual room of your facility. In the long run using an expert never costs—it only pays…
Paramadman
*(Aesthetics are not unimportant considerations by the way, but are not as important as function in my opinion).
Everything has a point of diminishing returns. If a recording
Everything has a point of diminishing returns.
If a recording is made in a booth environment even the marvelous U87 sounds unremarkable when compared with that same microphone used in a world class music studio. (BTW-I love using the U87 for my narrations)
Sure the very best microphones and recording hardware will make a better recording in your bedroom studio, but the sonic improvement will hardly be worth the $$$ investment without a great room.
Some how each studio operator must find a good balance for the environments they record in.