kmetal, post: 428385, member: 37533 wrote: In that case your original plan looks pretty good still.

Dude, if you can take the big space do it. That studio I work at has just about those dimensions for the CR. that's the cubic footage you need for full response. And seriously man, I never brag or anything like that, but the imaging and 3dimensional sound in that room is unlike anything. In the early 80s George augsburger approved the place.

What I'm saying is with a shell that size you could have a room that's not compromised like a typical home studio. Essentially you could make something that is truly professional. If you switch your spending from multiple walls for multiple rooms to just four walls and a ceiling your costs get focused, and reduced overall. Just in hvac alone you could save thousands.

It's a personal choice. I know from my experience working in larger multi room places, it's a pita by yourself. Walking thru a bunch of door around stuff to move a mic or worse a sound check on drums, in downright work. 80% of the time the rest of the studios lights don't even get turned on.

Obviously it's cool and all, but a killer control room is step 1 to me. If u had a million, okay make a real 'a' room. Imo just an open area will work for drums and a booth is fine for vocals.

Besides real estate wise, that CR could easily be a home theater or man cave. A compartmentalized series of rooms might not be as valuable. Just thinking on screen here. Sounds need physical space to exists. Too many people fight physics.

I think I've changed my mind and I'm going to opt for the one large room vs two small rooms (maybe later on finish one of the surrounding small rooms for a dedicated tracking room).

This will still be a home studio so I wont be doing any special HVAC.
I agree, a killer CR is #1 priority (tracking can either be done in the large CR or somewhere else that has a nice live room)
Plus, I'm already used to doing tracking and mixing all in one room.

Cool man I think your making a sort, efficient choice. Keep us posted on the design. I'll gladly share whatever I know that can help.

ChrisH, post: 428389, member: 43833 wrote: I agree, a killer CR is #1 priority (tracking can either be done in the large CR or somewhere else that has a nice live room)
Plus, I'm already used to doing tracking and mixing all in one room.

It's become very common to use one large room - and then look to portable/moveable acoustic treatment /isolation devices (Go-B0's ) to place around particular instruments, players, mics...

I never really did understand the studios I saw which had huge performance areas and a tiny CR.

Unless you are recording something big - such as a choir or orchestra - your approach is going to yield better results, and if you do happen to face a situation where a space larger than what you have is needed, you can always rent a hall, church, etc., and track the session with a remote rig - or - book time at a larger studio and factor the cost into the project quote. After all, you won't need to mix there, just use the larger area to track the performance.

Room test results at 85db

& then at 78db. WoW!

This was a huge learning experience for me to see how important and sensitive it is to mix at the lowest level possible.

Uhmmm.... not necessarily, Chris. What it might be instead, is a possible indicator of what your room is doing; how it's responding frequency-wise to the +/- 10db volume difference.

I'm not saying that mixing at lower volumes is a bad thing. I'm an engineer who tends to mix at softer levels than others... generally, I'm probably sitting around the 73-75db range - BUT - I also check my mixes at louder levels ( 85db), too...

https://en.wikipedi…

If it were me, I'd float this graphic differential past Brien Holcombe to get his take on it ( @Brien Holcombe ), to see if this isn't maybe something more indicative of your room's response, and that you could perhaps level it out a bit more through possible acoustic treatment methods.

I'm not saying there definitely is a way - I'm saying you should ask someone who knows a lot about this stuff - and Brien definitely fits that particular category

IMHO of course. ;)

d.

yeah, what Donny just said ..... the ear responds at it's flattest @ 85dB. i like to turn things down to see what is disappearing first. listen @ 75 and then turn up to 85 .... you will hear things @ 85 that you didn't hear @ 75. at least that what i get ......

If I had recorded curves like that with just a 7dB level difference between them, I would search hard for what I was doing wrong or what my equipment was doing wrong. I would want to know at least what the spot frequency results were at (say) 50Hz and 200Hz for all the 1dB amplitude steps between 78dB and 85dB. This would give an indication as to whether the gross differences happened at a sudden sound level or was a gradual movement over the 7dB range.

I once helped a colleague with a similar problem, but it wasn't so broadband. It turned out that a metal filler strip in the room was acting like the snare on a snare drum - vibrating inaudibly to itself at low amplitudes but rattling at higher amplitudes. It was odd that we knew something was not right with music playing loudly, but couldn't pin it down above the din of the music. It was only when we did the swept frequency test that we found it, and using single tones at the strip's resonant frequency showed it up instantly above a certain amplitude.

I'm not saying you have this particular problem, but, if the curves are to be believed, you have something very non-linear over a broad frequency range in your room or in your loudspeakers.

Boswell, post: 431089, member: 29034 wrote: . I would want to know at least what the spot frequency results were at (say) 50Hz and 200Hz for all the 1dB amplitude steps between 78dB and 85dB. This would give an indication as to whether the gross differences happened at a sudden sound level or was a gradual movement over the 7dB range..
.

That's a great idea.

This is all very interesting and I appreciate all the great insight, everybody.

Doesn't make sense that you would get approx. a 40dB level difference @ 20Hz and for that same frequency to be LOUDER at a lower level. Obviously deep bass trapping is next on your Christmas List. As deep as 6 inches and with no space behind it. You need all the friction you can get.

If you can get a handle on the low frequency range, and monitor at the lower level you may well get a nice flat response in this awkward area you are in. Do all the vertical corners....

Start a new thread and show us what you have already...talk can be misinterpreted on both sides of the thread and pictures tell the ills of a room quickly so are the best form of communication in this respect.

@Brien Holcombe
It doesn't make sense to me either.
However, I already have bass traps from floor to ceiling that are 4 inch thick, two ft wide 703 board.
Plus, I have (8) 2ft X 4ft 6 inch thick bass traps (also made of 703) spread out throughout the room.
The only thing that isn't treated is the first reflection above my mix position.

I meant to ask previously:

What level are the test curves normalised to? Is it the response at 1KHz (=0dB)?

What equipment did you use to get the test curves?

And are you moving the mic around the room like into one of the many corners which will yield a noticable increase?

ChrisH, post: 431105, member: 43833 wrote: @Brien Holcombe
It doesn't make sense to me either.
However, I already have bass traps from floor to ceiling that are 4 inch thick, two ft wide 703 board.
Plus, I have (8) 2ft X 4ft 6 inch thick bass traps (also made of 703) spread out throughout the room.
The only thing that isn't treated is the first reflection above my mix position.

the question that comes to my mind is, are these actual traps (panel Resonator / Helmholtz resonator) or absorbers? ridged fiberglass on it's own does not make a "trap".

Surely there are two different questions here: (a) the frequency response of the room at a given excitation level and what can be done to make it flatter, and (b) what is causing the apparent non-linear response of the room to changes in excitation level?

Bass traps and the like are all about (a). Within the range of excitation levels used in monitoring, traps are linear and should always exhibit the same behaviour relative to the level at (say) 1KHz. That means if you measure a 6dB increase at 80Hz relative to the response at 1KHz, you should see this at 45dB or 85dB excitation and all levels inbetween, provided that no change is made to the microphone and loudspeaker positions.

I would like to see amplitude response curves performed at a few different fixed frequencies, with the same proviso of no change to the microphone and loudspeaker positions.

Boswell, post: 431107, member: 29034 wrote: What level are the test curves normalised to? Is it the response at 1KHz (=0dB)?

What equipment did you use to get the test curves?

I would echo what Boswell mentioned above, regarding your measurement methods... it would be helpful to know how you reached these calculations.

d.

That's the same test Chris (audiokid) and I used on our Opals. It's a software and mic solution given to us by Event when we buy them :).

ChrisH, post: 431105, member: 43833 wrote:
However, I already have bass traps from floor to ceiling that are 4 inch thick, two ft wide 703 board.
Plus, I have (8) 2ft X 4ft 6 inch thick bass traps (also made of 703) spread out throughout the room.
The only thing that isn't treated is the first reflection above my mix position.

This is some of that confusion I referred to earlier. What you have are broadband absorbers straddling the corners , the 703 series is 1", 2" and 4" but not 6 ". In order for bass trapping to trap bass frequency it has to (the trapping) be as deep as possible if a specific target is not established, and as deep as a whole room when a bass frequency is targeted. Make sense?

So what you have currently is a completely out of focus room with too many variables. A mixing room wants to be symmetric, you already knew that, I am just repeating it for future referance. Two reasons why, the first being the most important. The human ear requires it in order to make accurate decisions in a mixing environment.

The second, actually as important as the first since it leads to a destructive environment, is the balance of the room that contain the monitors and there fore the sound. As your room is now, the left speaker has a built in bass cavity while the right hand does not.

You cannot test a room that is currently not a room, right :) What you get are the weird plots that you are currently getting since there is no balance to speak of, hard concrete block or poured concrete walls that are hard and reflective and only complicate the issue, plus most likely open cavities above your head exposing the framing joists and insulation....or you could have sheetrock which is just another hard surface to a microphone.

Anyway, this is a great link to read about how to do your bass traps to yield the highest possible results from the most learned of persons describing the example.
http://forum.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?t=535

All I am saying at this point is this. Develop some type of balanced environment, symmetrical and then you can test. It doesn't even have to be treated acoustically just a well balanced room for a good start that will consistently produce the same results over and over so you can tell when to move forward and when to move back and when to stop and re-calibrate your plan.

Brien Holcombe, post: 431108, member: 48996 wrote: And are you moving the mic around the room like into one of the many corners which will yield a noticable increase?

No, the mic stays placed at my listening position, in the "triangle".

Kurt Foster, post: 431109, member: 7836 wrote: the question that comes to my mind is, are these actual traps (panel Resonator / Helmholtz resonator) or absorbers? ridged fiberglass on it's own does not make a "trap".

Absorbers

Brien Holcombe, post: 431133, member: 48996 wrote: This is some of that confusion I referred to earlier. What you have are broadband absorbers straddling the corners , the 703 series is 1", 2" and 4" but not 6 ".
.

They're made of 703 that came 2'' thick and then stacked 3 X to be 6'' thick.

.

it doesn't matter how thick, they're still not bass traps. http://www.mh-audio… these are bass traps.

click on the box's - Helmholtz Resonator - Helmholtz Panel Resonator - Panel Resonator - Slat Resonator and Placing Traps & Links

the traps made by weener boy are panel Resonators. once you see how simple they are to make you will understand how overpriced they are.

Kurt Foster, post: 431195, member: 7836 wrote: weener boy

:ROFLMAO:

I'd be thinking about making super chunk style traps with that material. Or I'm not sure what the quantifiable effect would be, but you could stuff the cavity but the straddled panels with some pink fluffy fiberglass to help trap more or deeper lows.

Kurt Foster, post: 431195, member: 7836 wrote: it doesn't matter how thick, they're still not bass traps. [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.mh-audio…"]these [/]="http://www.mh-audio…"]these [/]are bass traps.

click on the box's - Helmholtz Resonator - Helmholtz Panel Resonator - Panel Resonator - Slat Resonator and Placing Traps & Links

the traps made by weener boy are panel Resonators. once you see how simple they are to make you will understand how overpriced they are.

The data you shared is how I originally understood bass traps but then the same person that told me about that formula later on said that it's actually just as effective to use thick dense fiberglass board with an air gap behind it.

So what you're saying is there's THREE different category's of acoustic treatment (Traps/Resonators, Diffusion, and Absorption), correct?

Also, you're saying that there no sense in using thick absorption if it "doesn't matter how thick it is"?
Might as well just use 2 inch thick abortion panels where deadening is needed and leave traps/resonators to tune the rooms response, am I on the right page?

thick absorption is broad band .... but not bass trapping. in some situations, broad band absorption can work on its own but by the results of your tests it seems you have some difficult mode gremlins that poke their ugly little heads up as you increase volume and excite them.

you can not drive a car at night without headlights. in some situations you may be able to see well enough by the moon light to navigate safely but you will still miss details. dealing with acoustics with out knowing the issues, is synonymous. you need to shed some light on the problem.

the advice is as Brian said. remove all treatments and set up the room symmetrically. this is most important! (unless you want to work in mono. lol!)

next measure the room with pink noise and an RTA. then add treatments to address the individual problems. modes / peaks / nulls, should be addressed with frequency specific traps ... (see the charts in the link i posted for what the volume of your traps needs to be )

treat broad band issues with absorption. modes with traps. slap echoes / flutters with diffusion, i like diffusion at least on the rear walls but a lot of others get by without. real diffusion is expensive.

ChrisH Just an FYI in case you missed it in instructions from Event, that test is meant to be done at 80 or 85db anyway :). It's how it works. Just can't remember which was the figure, been a few months since I read it.

Kurt Foster Gotcha (y) Thank you

@Makzimia Yeah, it's 75-85 actually

Makzimia, post: 431243, member: 48344 wrote: ChrisH Just an FYI in case you missed it in instructions from Event, that test is meant to be done at 80 or 85db anyway :). It's how it works. Just can't remember which was the figure, been a few months since I read it.

The Event setup was very accurate to my results. At the end of my setup, my monitors sounded very smooth at all levels. Opals are imo, excellent monitors. Which I would be imho, an awesome compliment to NS10's. As would be with Aurotones and KH120. Which are what I have here. Or I should say, what I use most.
All these serve for a different purpose.

I have a pair of BM6A Mosfets. They lack midrange for me. They would be excellent for someone that mixes shy on mids. I tend to add too much mids with them. I know what I need to suit my hearing and deficiencies. Understand my weakness is a big part of my daily rituals. Easier said than done. :notworthy:

Kurt Foster
Here's what my new control room looks like, haven't moved in yet.
Is that asymmetry going to be a problem?

ohhh there's at least 2 ways to approach this ..... i would set up in front of the window facing the live room with the mix position exactly in the middle .... (8') . or you can flip it 180 degrees and fire the room length wise which actually is better for low frequencies to form.

the easiest way to do it is to build a false wall across that alcove ... perhaps a huge bass trap, a book case or stuff a couch in there. whatever you can to make the room as rectangular as possible ... 16' X 11.9' is respectable. the 8' ceiling is problematical but not insurmountable. you will need to float a cloud over the mix position.

Thank you Kurt Foster
I would rather fire the speakers the length of the room so that traffic stays behind the gear and I believe the flow of the room is superior that way.
Once I move in to this room I will find the best listening position and speaker location (acoustically) and upload the graphs.
I'm guessing I'm going to need a more complex software than Event's Studio EQ ?

ChrisH, post: 431251, member: 43833 wrote: I'm guessing I'm going to need a more complex software than Event's Studio EQ ?

Nope, just that, it's what audiokid used too. I got very close in my big room I had with it, I just wasn't willing to go any further knowing I was going to move.

Radial Monitor Controller:

Received it, tried it out for 3 hours.
I know this isn't the Dangerous controller but I now completely understand where Chris is coming from when he places allot of importance on having a well designed monitor controller.
If using multiple sets of monitors (like most do) is part of the way you cook mix's, then having a great monitor controller is a complete thrill and must have.
So far I haven't notice any loss in audio quality, functionality is perfect, it's very intuitive and speeds up your work flow tremendously (way more than I thought it would be considering its not remote
operated).
My only complaint is that the outputs and inputs are not xlr capable (but I guess it helps with keeping the unit compact), it was a hassle buying adapters for every in and output.

However so far I'm completely happy with the unit, Even though for a minute (in the beginning) I thought there was a level imbalance between the left and right side but after gain staging it disappeared.

Kurt Foster, post: 431250, member: 7836 wrote: the easiest way to do it is to build a false wall across that alcove ... perhaps a huge bass trap, a book case or stuff a couch in there.

I was thinking the same thing, being that the depth is 1 1/2 ' ft, that it could perhaps serve as an area for treatment of some kind, and, it may even turn out that you would have to treat that area, but I'm not an acoustics expert, so I'm only thinking out loud. I don't want anyone to get the impression that I'm stating any of this as "fact".

I do know that it's not as if that 8' alcove section, at only 1 1/2' deep, is going to make much all that much difference either way in usable space... other than for treatment, or perhaps a bookshelf or something, as Kurt mentioned.

But ... if it were me, I'd still wait on Brien ( @Brien Holcombe ) to take a look at your drawing and weigh in on it.

IMHO of course, :D

d.

That alcove can easily house some corner trapping and nearly 2' of depth is good depth to hit the 70-90hz problem areas in a room that size.

By the time you fit amps, storage, the tape machine (lol jk) ect, in the alcove, you might find it not a problem.

If your going to have asymmetries, they are better off behind you. If you have the basic mirror points covered, some slight variances In the rest of the area should not make or break a room of this type.

Testing software is fairly sophisticated, so the mic or software is usually not the weak point. It is the testing procedure itself and operator error, and mis interpreting of the information that is likely to cause far more problems, than test software limitations. REW is the a well known freeware testing program, should you feel inclined.

Here's a rough one. Basic rfz style treatment. Don't forget that a corner is a corner. Bass trapping is effective where the walls and ceilings meet, and stay off the floor space. That's what I was trying to illustrate in the bottom left of this, a trap along the wall/ceiling juncture. Blue is bass trap, red is broadband. That squiggly line is a theater curtain type absorbsion.

If you extend isolation construction, to include the bathroom, you can make it part of you bass trapping significantly increasing the acoustic depth of the room.

Radial Monitor Controller Update:

After testing the controller in greater detail, I noticed that I wasn't crazy and when you attenuate the volume down to 75 or lower db the disbursement to your left and right monitors becomes imbalanced :( Left monitors being louder than the right.

So... if I can't fix that, I've gotta move on, I believe my best option for what I want out of a controller is the SPL MTC.
Didn't audiokid own the MTC?

The SPL 2381 MTC is excellent.

audiokid, post: 431306, member: 1 wrote: The SPL 2381 MTC is excellent.

Good to know.
I suppose I'll take the plunge.

ChrisH, post: 431307, member: 43833 wrote:
Good to know.
I suppose I'll take the plunge.

Sorry for the late response, I've been driving all day.

You asked prior to this,

What was your reason for switching to the Dangerous ST?

This simple answer:

The 2381 is superb quality but not quite as pro as the ST. The ST has relay switching, more ways to customize it and a very useful sub woofer controller. You get what you pay for.

The one thing the 2381 has that the ST doesn't is a mono switch that includes the headphones. Dangerous just mono's the speakers.
I suppose Dangerous figured you can simply use your DAW to mono headphones or maybe it meant loosing some transparency somewhere. I dunno but I did miss that.

I've read (although my 2381 was stellar) there were some early released issues with the volume pot going static. Mine never did that. SPL is a stellar company so if by chance you bought a used one, I know they will take care of you if that should happen.
You can find them used for around $500. It is well worth it.
It will blow the Radial away.
There are other options better than the Radial but these are the two I have personally owned and really like. The Dangerous Source looks cool too, as does the SPL Crimson.

The ST ( or comparable monitor controller) used to its full potential, is the best investment I've ever made in all gear I've purchased in 4 decades. It teaches you how to listen and when you get it, you will hear the bloat and sift through BS. If I didn't have that, I would still be wasting money buying gear and plug-ins that are useless. My goal has always been to build a studio to learn how to hear music better than average. Not just to record sound and say , here it is.
as you are now getting a taste of, monitor control is a key component to getting closer to your goal.
The 2381 is just slightly shy of what the ST is. Go for it. You will not be disappointed in the least.

Welcome to great monitoring!

audiokid, post: 431309, member: 1 wrote:
I've read (although my 2381 was stellar) there were some early released issues with the volume pot going static. Mine never did that. SPL is a stellar company so if by chance you bought a used one, I know they will take care of you if that should happen.
You can find them used for around $500. It is well worth it.

Thank you, Chris.
$500.00??? Sign me up, I'd buy an SPL MTC in a heart beat for $500.00
However, I cannot find a single one used :(