Beingmf,
I'm not playing down the importance of room treatment for professionals, or for anyone with poor rooms with really bad acoustics.
Equally you should not downplay the significance of the real loudspeaker development and the relationship between the room and the loudspeakers.
OK. Maybe it would be helpful for lurkers reading the thread if we clarified the purpose of the room treatment in question. Is it an amateur room, a semi-pro room or a pro room?
(apart from that: otherwise I fear I come accross as an esoteric nitpicker, haha)
Loudspeakers, as long as they meet certain criteria, can be learned and are subject to personal preference and taste. Otherwise every speaker would sound the same.
(today I had a funny discussion with my mastering friend about the German manufacturer "Adam" - you know, the company praising the ribbon tweeter. After I had expressed my dislike about the concept*, he said that they try so hard to get their foot in the door of the mastering "scene", but pretty much everyone hates the monitors. By chance? Surely not. They even offered him - I don't know if I might tell that in the first place - insane discounts just for having him use their product and put some pics on his, and their, website.)
I am sure that Adam speakers are spec-wise an amazing product, but somehow humans don't seem to hear that
* similar to Geithains. I hate that sound
__________________ Windows 10x64 | AMD Ryzen 3700X | ATI FirePro 2100 | Marian Seraph AD2, 4.3.8 | Yamaha Steinberg MR816x "If I can hear well, then everything I do is right" (Allen Sides)
What would happen if you split the mix of a track across two separate rooms? If you could switch quite effortlessly between two different sized/shaped rooms, would one help to compensate for the others shortcomings, and vice versa? And so basically average the mix between two rooms. Until you were happy with it in both spaces.
I think it's probably more logical to have just one acoustic space to work from, one you know, one you've evened out over time. Got it in tune. And one that you know provides mixes that translate in different locations.
But I'm just curious about the notion of averaging in the aforementioned way. A/B-ing between two rooms until you get a good compromise. And what the result might be.
What would happen if you split the mix of a track across two separate rooms? If you could switch quite effortlessly between two different sized/shaped rooms, would one help to compensate for the others shortcomings, and vice versa? And so basically average the mix between two rooms. Until you were happy with it in both spaces.
I think it's probably more logical to have just one acoustic space to work from, one you know, one you've evened out over time. Got it in tune. And one that you know provides mixes that translate in different locations.
But I'm just curious about the notion of averaging in the aforementioned way. A/B-ing between two rooms until you get a good compromise. And what the result might be.
Maybe a complete waste of time!
Mix in two different untreated rooms with their own separate frequency problems and different speakers? Not good. No guarantee of good results and a lot of extra time spent on guesswork.
It might be useful to mix tracks in one space and compare it on various systems.
Some people think that if a mix doesn't sound right in an average car and the good audio system and a decent set of headphones and iPod/phone ear buds then the mix is probably not going to translate to the wide audience. OTOH if you were mixing for an audiophile audience you would only care about optimizing the sound for quality systems, not compromise the sound for bandwidth limited systems and radio friendly loudness.
You will see pro studios often have several sets of monitors and sometimes some really crappy speakers (intentionally bandwidth limited) sitting on the desk (along with the main monitors) to check the mix on too. Those aren't to mix on, they are to check how the finished results translates to portable radio, computer speakers, TV speakers, crappy car radio....
OK. Maybe it would be helpful for lurkers reading the thread if we clarified the purpose of the room treatment in question. Is it an amateur room, a semi-pro room or a pro room?
(apart from that: otherwise I fear I come accross as an esoteric nitpicker, haha)
Loudspeakers, as long as they meet certain criteria, can be learned and are subject to personal preference and taste. Otherwise every speaker would sound the same.
(today I had a funny discussion with my mastering friend about the German manufacturer "Adam" - you know, the company praising the ribbon tweeter. After I had expressed my dislike about the concept*, he said that they try so hard to get their foot in the door of the mastering "scene", but pretty much everyone hates the monitors. By chance? Surely not. They even offered him - I don't know if I might tell that in the first place - insane discounts just for having him use their product and put some pics on his, and their, website.)
I am sure that Adam speakers are spec-wise an amazing product, but somehow humans don't seem to hear that
* similar to Geithains. I hate that sound
Adam use Heil air motion transformers, similar to ribbons, though some wouldn't like me saying that.
I can understand that. Adam Audio produce very different sounding products to Geithain though.
You should not have to attempt to learn to listen through the faults of inadequate monitors, or (in some cases) fool yourself that you have learned to listen through their faults either.
Mix in two different untreated rooms with their own separate frequency problems and different speakers?
No, same monitors. And whatever additional test speakers if you wanted.
Not sure about the treatment. Perhaps it could help. The music is going to be listened to in a whole bunch of odd ball furnished rooms/spaces anyway, if listened to on speakers.
Much easier if the mix were only for headphones. But we're talking about rooms.
Much easier if the mix were only for headphones. But we're talking about rooms.
I hate to see "listen on headphones" on Soundcloud. It's very common unfortunately. So few people have experienced a properly set up decent Hi-Fi system these days. Headphones are probably the only decent source those people have ever heard. Good sound, but in their head space only
A mix should translate to speakers and headphones as a secondary consideration.
Would a room with problem frequencies affect a mono mix the same as it's stereo counterpart? One speaker vs two?
Firstly no one should consider mixing in mono as an alternative. There is no scenario where that would be a good idea, for general consumption anyway. test the sound in mono sure, not mix in it!
Problem frequencies are not merely down to room dimensions and furnishings but also down to speaker placement and listener placement. So many factors.
I would rather see you mix on headphones than a single mono speaker. That is unless you are recording for a weird niche audiophile audience that likes the sound of ancient valves & mono shellac 78s.
Even if (for some strange reason) you had to mix in mono you would be better off mixing to a phantom image produced by a "stereo" pair anyway, rather than direct from a single speaker.
Attached is a picture of producer Frank Filipetti's mix room. He's won six grammys for his productions. Not a shred of room treatment to be seen anywhere. Does this say anything to us about room treatment? And all the materials we are sold?
Just a thought.
P.
Yes. It says you don't really understand what you're looking at. Heavy, dense, rough hewn concrete and stone walls, peaked wood framed ceilings and floors, long, and tall... That is a room that was made to absorb lows and diffuse mids and highs.
Here are the second two pics I posted. The first one, (the original I posted), has some sort of stretching, depth of field thing going on, skewing the dimensions of the room. But anyway, you can get a better drift of the room from these two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerome_oneil
Yes. It says you don't really understand what you're looking at. Heavy, dense, rough hewn concrete and stone walls, peaked wood framed ceilings and floors, long, and tall... That is a room that was made to absorb lows and diffuse mids and highs.
That room is treated, whether you know it or not.
I see plaster on the walls. No idea what's beneath that. Can't see what's on the floor myself, (even in the original). Definitely open V ceiling so we can agree on that. The room doesn't look long to me either.
Here are the second two pics I posted. The first one, (the original I posted), has some sort of stretching, depth of field thing going on, skewing the dimensions of the room. But anyway, you can get a better drift of the room from these two.
I see plaster on the walls. No idea what's beneath that. Can't see what's on the floor myself, (even in the original). Definitely open V ceiling so we can agree on that. The room doesn't look long to me either.
Yes, it appears there's a rough plaster on the walls which will diffuse the higher frequencies.
However, what I see here is a big room with very nearfield monitors. the direct sound from the monitors is happening much much sooner than the acoustic reflections. Consequently, if the levels of the monitors isn't too high, the room reflections may not be too bad. How ever, at louder volumes I would think it could be pretty quishy.
Yes, it appears there's a rough plaster on the walls which will diffuse the higher frequencies.
That's interesting. Good to know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tod
However, what I see here is a big room with very nearfield monitors. the direct sound from the monitors is happening much much sooner than the acoustic reflections. Consequently, if the levels of the monitors isn't too high, the room reflections may not be too bad. How ever, at louder volumes I would think it could be pretty quishy.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the room looks that big at all. Definitely a high, open ceiling, yes. But the distance between him and the monitors (pic 1), and him and the back wall (pic 2), looks kind of similar? It looks to me if he spun around in that chair that he wouldn't have too far to reach to touch the back wall.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the room looks that big at all. Definitely a high, open ceiling, yes. But the distance between him and the monitors (pic 1), and him and the back wall (pic 2), looks kind of similar? It looks to me if he spun around in that chair that he wouldn't have too far to reach to touch the back wall.
Just an observation
Yes, you may be right. However, if it's just the back wall that is close, that may not be so bad as long as the returning reflected frequencies were delayed long enough as to not smear the direct sound. There's formulas for this but it's been so long that I don't remember them at all. That's basically what the LEDE control rooms were designed and built on in the late 70s and early 80s.
At any rate, and in all honesty, that room does not look like a room I would want to work in. I have my doubts that a lot of mixing is going on in that room, and if so, it's because that guy has conquered it.
Yes, you may be right. However, if it's just the back wall that is close, that may not be so bad as long as the returning reflected frequencies were delayed long enough as to not smear the direct sound. There's formulas for this but it's been so long that I don't remember them at all. That's basically what the LEDE control rooms were designed and built on in the late 70s and early 80s.
Thanks Tod. That is a very interesting point. And worth exploring a little more perhaps. Check this out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tod
At any rate, and in all honesty, that room does not look like a room I would want to work in. I have my doubts that a lot of mixing is going on in that room, and if so, it's because that guy has conquered it.
His CME X-Key is the wrong way around, so not being used then.
Photo's can skew perspective. I don't think it is that big a room, certainly not small though.
He has large mid-field or far field speakers in the background. If you look at the picture quickly they just look like the near-fields, but those are on the desk.
They most certainly do! This was the original pic I posted, at the beginning of the thread too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Softsynth
It's not a very large room, but certainly not a small room. It's a busy, cluttered room, without the usual flat walls. I bet it sounds great.
I have no doubt it does!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Softsynth
He has large mid-field or far field speakers in the background. If you look at the picture quickly they just look like the near-fields, but those are on the desk.
Yes I noticed this, and I wondered what it's function might be. Surround sound? Another reference point, (switch between front and then back monitors)? Or is there some different technique being used here?
Yes I noticed this, and I wondered what it's function might be. Surround sound? Another reference point, (switch between front and then back monitors)? Or is there some different technique being used here?
Not surround sound, the configuration is entirely wrong for that.
Those are for full range monitoring (allowing for deeper bass and playing at higher SPLs).
Larger speakers for greater frequency response and high volume monitoring. Most of the mixing will most likely be on the near-field monitors on the desk. Then the mix would be tested at higher volume on the larger monitors.
Stucco yields nice diffraction 5K+. Old construction means the walls are probably "less than parallel". He's got a fair amount of asymmetrical elements going on, the stone fireplace, the staircase. High, vaulted ceiling.
If you watch this video interview with him in that space, you can hear the ambiance from the mic in the room. IMO it's very nice sounding, nothing pokes out and it's certainly not very long or unruly with flutter:
IMO, there is something to be said for having "behaved, but real-world listening environments".
Another comment:
Just about any small-condenser mic is going to have a flat enough response to measure a room.
It doesn't matter about how accurate it is to a perfect reference, because on a budget you're never going to get a room anywhere near flat, or even within 3-6db. Which is well within the deviation of most small condensers, and when it comes to showing you the results of your room treatment, they will be probably within half a db or more per 1/3rd octave in linearity. Which, again, will be on par with an experienced engineer's hearing threshold, and more specific than you'll be able to target with "room treatment".
Thanks Tod. That is a very interesting point. And worth exploring a little more perhaps. Check this out.
You could very well be right
Heh heh, yeah, that's it exactly, I built my LEDE room back in 79 & 80. I still have it and It's served me pretty well, although if I were to do it today, I'm sure I would do it differently. I don't know, I'd have to do a lot of research, and now that I'm totally retired, that's not going to happen.
IMO, there is something to be said for having "behaved, but real-world listening environments".
This is brilliant. Thanks for sharing. And your thoughts on the room are probably pretty close to the mark, so thanks for this too.
And I couldn't agree more with, "behaved, but real-world listening environments". I have a number of options I can consider, (so I'm lucky in this regard), I've just got to decide which will be best.
Also, not sure if anyone has heard of 'Sonarworks', but their new software, for both room/speaker, and headphone calibration, is getting a lot of attention at the moment. And getting some cracking reviews too. Worth exploring.
Re: your room. But on the plus side you must be well used to it at this stage, and are well aware of how your work translates from it too. So if it ain't broke...
__________________ Windows 10x64 | AMD Ryzen 3700X | ATI FirePro 2100 | Marian Seraph AD2, 4.3.8 | Yamaha Steinberg MR816x "If I can hear well, then everything I do is right" (Allen Sides)
1: The distance behind his monitors is outside of the Haas window. (A minimum of 11.2 feet, IIRC) No problems there.
2: The OP is assuming that those walls are some kind of hard plaster or stone. It's probably actually a semi-permeable substance, with mineral wool & various traps behind it. The surface texture obviously breaks up the HF, giving more live feel but still fairly even.
3: It's hard to tell from the pics, but his walls are probably not parallel. They likely spread wider as they travel behind him, so no standing waves & a large reflection-free zone. He's set up his room to more closely resemble a "typical" listening environment, but with fairly even response. More like a mastering room than a mixing room.
4: Anyone who thinks that a properly-tuned room is not important is seriously delusional, or massively inexperienced,, or simply only makes music for themselves.
- insane discounts just for having him use their product and put some pics on his, and their, website.)
Linear Mode
