Seeking feedback on acoustic treatment and design

[Krakadon]

I posted this on John L Sayers Recording Studio Acoustics forum and got a wonderful response (as in the analysis was wonderful, the feedback was quite painful but it is what it is). I am also seeking other people's option so I am grateful to anyone that can offer (an educated) opinion.

I have been a guitar player and hobbyist producer for years, but I really want to be able to produce broadcast quality results of the songs I make for me and others, I guess we can say clients, in my own project studio. At long last, I have some really good, for me anyway, equipment built around a MBP, a UA Apollo with a couple of quad satellites, and a UA 4-710D. I also have a quite decent (I think) monitoring set-up with a Drawmer MC3.1, Adam AX7s, Yamaha HS5s, Avantone MixCubes, and a KRK 10S v2 sub (which I only use for spot checks or blowing the doors off). I run my speakers full range and the sub has a dedicated channel from the Drawmer. I have the cross-over set to 60Hz. What I am seeking now is the most accurate monitoring I can achieve within my constraints.

I rented a small duplex and have a 13'10"x13'10"x8'9" room with a hard floor (all of the details are in the subsequent slides). Clearly there are limitations with this small, somewhat cubic room. Also, as a renter, I can't make any structural changes. I spent a long time researching and planning the Acoustic Treatment, and ran the plans by some folks who said they looked good. I spent about $2,500, and a huge number of hours, designing, constructing and installing the treatment. When I took the REW measurements, I was quite bummed at the results. I’m seeking feedback on the design and results and any recommendations for improvements. Thanks in advance to anyone that can help me out.

Here is a link to full res slides, selected full res pics and the REW measurements. OK, I guess I can't post a link yet. I'll post a couple of full res.

 

[Mack Caster]

I posted this on John L Sayers Recording Studio Acoustics forum and got a wonderful response (as in the analysis was wonderful, the feedback was quite painful but it is what it is). I am also seeking other people's option so I am grateful to anyone that can offer (an educated) opinion.

I went down the same road you did with John as well. For me, "painful" was an understatement. My room size is a 10.5 x 12.5 with 8' ceilings so I am in a little better shape than you as far as that goes. I just received 2 boxes of 2' x 4' x 2" rockwool insulation. That will give me 12 panels to treat reflections. I will build a 7' x 10.5' book case on the rear wall for diffusion and install a cloud similar to yours. The difference between both our projects is you want to monitor and I want to track. I will use close micing.

What I am seeking now is the most accurate monitoring I can achieve within my constraints.

You sound like and according to your design, a very detailed person who went above and beyond researching what you needed. The hard truth is that for monitoring, it all comes down to the math concerning room size. From building double leafs, dead air space and ceiling height, you have no way to change these dimensions. In order for you to get the results you are seeking, you would have to use so much treatment that it now becomes impractical to do so. I figured this out after, like you, spending months looking for advice on how to improve my room for monitoring as well.

Every piece of information after spending close to 100 hrs via the www, all pointed back to the room size. I sent my dimensions to two companies that quoted me 7 to 8 grand for their treatment system and I would lose close to 60% of my room size. Even than they would not guarantee me the results as they advertised, as my room did not meet their min specs.

I also bought the mic recommend by John and I will run the REW program after I get my panels and book shelf built just for my own curiosity. As far as tracking, I am anticipating great results. As far as monitoring goes, I will more than likely be setting up my mons to be extremely isolated. Maybe something like a 3' x 5' x 7' iso booth in the next room all bass trapped out. I do not expect to get great results for monitoring in the track room.

I know this is not what you wanted to hear and the only reason that I even replied to you, was to let you know that you are not alone in your quest. Very seldom do I take "no" for an answer or even think about giving up on a project or idea. I figured that I would be able to use a work around concerning this issue as well. Regardless of where I turn, I have hit nothing but brick walls! This is one of those situations where 2 + 2 must = 4 to get the proper results.

 

[rob aylestone]

Loads of data - but what does it sound like that is 'wrong'?

 

[Mack Caster]

Loads of data - but what does it sound like that is 'wrong'?

Your question, is the answer. "but what does it sound like that is 'wrong"?. The OPs situation, is drastically reduced by what is called "Modes". There is some very hellish math behind his problem. When he plays his audio in the room, there are many frequencies that are wiped clean, this is do to the room size and that is where the "Modes" come into play.

Therefore, even if he had $20,000 dollar monitors, he will never hear the audio as it was recorded. He would be better off, putting on a set of high dollar cans to mix and then sub out the mastering. Since that is not his objective, he is pretty well screwed. You can't mix or master, what you can't hear. This is where the dead freqs come into play. All he will ever get is false examples of the audio he is playing. Please keep in mind that my reply is just the Readers Digest version on this subject.

 

[miroslav]

I don't see any measurements before you applied all that treatment....?
You should have done them first so you have some kind of reference to compare against once you start adding treatment.

I also think you need more on the ceiling....or drop a rug on the floor.
I would have turned it around, and put the mix position on the side where the fireplace is.
I would also have more trapping at the back wall, behind you...you have most of it on the front wall, behind the monitors.

Finally...if anyone expects to see flat responses post-treatment......you're only fooling yourself.
You can run measurements even in some better studios, and you will see a lot of up/down points.
You will not be able to remove it all...without a ground-up studio build and pro design...BUT...that doesn't mean you have to mix with headphones, which bring their own issues, no matter how expensive they are.
They key is translation...not waterfall renders and response curves. Those are there for you to get some idea what you have, and as you apply treatment, what changes...but in the end, if you can get a mix that translates well elsewhere, that's the important thing.

 

[Mack Caster]

I don't see any measurements before you applied all that treatment....?
You should have done them first so you have some kind of reference to compare against once you start adding treatment.

I also think you need more on the ceiling....or drop a rug on the floor.
I would have turned it around, and put the mix position on the side where the fireplace is.
I would also have more trapping at the back wall, behind you...you have most of it on the front wall, behind the monitors.

Finally...if anyone expects to see flat responses post-treatment......you're only fooling yourself.
You can run measurements even in some better studios, and you will see a lot of up/down points.
You will not be able to remove it all...without a ground-up studio build and pro design...BUT...that doesn't mean you have to mix with headphones, which bring their own issues, no matter how expensive they are.
They key is translation...not waterfall renders and response curves. Those are there for you to get some idea what you have, and as you apply treatment, what changes...but in the end, if you can get a mix that translates well elsewhere, that's the important thing.

If you look at the pics the OP supplied, you will see all the information as well as the dimensions. Your are correct about doing this before you really knew what you are doing. But then again, my 20/20 hindsight is as good as any one elses. Regardless of what he does, he will never get professional results for monitoring. Its just math, not my opinion.

Can he get good results? IMHO, yes! But than again, I go outside the box and think you can get better results using a $59.00 set of cans. I simply base this on 67% of all music is consumed on $12.00 ear buds. This pretty well takes your $5,000.00 mons out of play.

 

[miroslav]

I understand what you're saying...though there are probably different levels and styles of "pro" results.
If someone is looking to build a top-notch mix/mastering studio...a small bedroom space will never fill that roll to meet the demands of the top notch pros.

That said...there are a lot of "pros" with small rooms, and many doing the same thing we all do...convert a spare room or garage into their studio, and they face the same issues. I mean, not everyone builds a studio from the ground up.
So the point is that you can get pro results in all kinds of room sizes and environments, you just need to work harder the further the space is from a purpose-built studio.

I guess what I'm saying is that there's a lot between the top-shelf pro spaces...and resorting to headphones.
You don't need to give up too easily on a monitor setup, and I think for Pop/Rock/Metal...you probably have more flexibility AFA what spaces can qualify for and yield pretty good pro results.

I substantially upgraded my monitors recently..and I could hear the difference in my space. I also built some additional low-end traps, and with that too, I could hear and see the benefit in the measurements.

Not having a flat response doesn't necessarily mean the room sucks for mixing. I think if you have good balance in your response curves, and you tame the really odd/bad nulls/peaks, especially below 500 Hz...you could have a decent working space....and then it's about getting the mixes to translate. If you can do that, the room response curves won't matter.

 

[Krakadon]

I don't see any measurements before you applied all that treatment....?
You should have done them first so you have some kind of reference to compare against once you start adding treatment.

Yes, it is true. I didn't measure the room response before I started. I assumed that if I applied some "basic principles" the result would be reasonable given the practical constraints of the room. That was Soundman2020's instruction...remove everything in the room except the speakers and measure the room. It is also true that I used a Behringer ECM8000 and Radio Shack SPL meter to do the test which they don't advise on that forum.

 

[Krakadon]

Can he get good results? IMHO, yes! But than again, I go outside the box and think you can get better results using a $59.00 set of cans. I simply base this on 67% of all music is consumed on $12.00 ear buds. This pretty well takes your $5,000.00 mons out of play.

I actually have Sennheiser HD650's and AKG K702's so I have some excellent headphones. But that does take a lot of the fun out of it, plus I find them fatiguing after a while.

 

[miroslav]

It is also true that I used a Behringer ECM8000 and Radio Shack SPL meter to do the test which they don't advise on that forum.

What did they advise you to use instead?

 

[Mack Caster]

I understand what you're saying...though there are probably different levels and styles of "pro" results.

I agree with you 100%. Most of this will boil down to the personality of the person doing the mixing.

Not having a flat response doesn't necessarily mean the room sucks for mixing. I think if you have good balance in your response curves, and you tame the really odd/bad nulls/peaks, especially below 500 Hz...you could have a decent working space....and then it's about getting the mixes to translate. If you can do that, the room response curves won't matter.

This is what took me so long to wrap my head around, when I started my quest months ago. Then someone explained it to me like this and the light bulb went off instantly in my head. "You can't mix what you can't hear". That's what this program does. It tells you what frequencies are artificially boosted as well as cut, in your mixing space. So if your room size is outside the bolt area, you are going to have to make extreme changes to get it right.

If your room is artificially cutting 300hz to 400hz, and 800hz to 900hz, then as you listen and if you have trained your ear, you will be inclined to maybe boost those areas. Well, now it sounds great to you and if someone else listens to your audio in a room other than where you mixed the audio, those freqs are going to jump off the page at them. It was my last sentence that I could not wrap my head around. My line of thinking was, "no duh, everyone will be listening in a different room and when they plug in their ear buds, the room is taken out of the equation completely". This process is really just to help you get the flattest response that can be achieved to avoid your room/ears playing tricks on you.

Yes, it is true. I didn't measure the room response before I started. I assumed that if I applied some "basic principles" the result would be reasonable given the practical constraints of the room. That was Soundman2020's instruction...remove everything in the room except the speakers and measure the room. It is also true that I used a Behringer ECM8000 and Radio Shack SPL meter to do the test which they don't advise on that forum.

Doing it before you applied any treatment would have not benefited you whatsoever. In fact, it would have probably driven you crazy. I have the same mic and meter you do and I took my advice from the people who developed the program, not soundmans. I nicknamed him "Chewy" due to the fact that every time we conversed, that's what he did to my 6.

I actually have Sennheiser HD650's and AKG K702's so I have some excellent headphones. But that does take a lot of the fun out of it, plus I find them fatiguing after a while.

I hear ya Brother, but all is not lost. I have a friend who runs sound over in DC for all their big shin digs and I was talking about your situation as well as my own, since we are both really in the same boat. (Boat = Bust Out Another Thousand". This is what he recommended and I hope I can explain it to you, like he did for me. Just so you know, I have about a tenth of the experience he does but I felt much better after he said he uses the same mic you and I own.

By doing the test you did, you should have the frequencies that are effected by your room. Simply build your custom eq to either cut or boost them, depending on your data. As you are mixing, place that eq on your master track. When you do your play back, listen through your mons and than do the same thing using your cans. Then turn the eq on and off as you listen, and see if you can tell the difference between the two.

Since 99% of his gigs are live, he said the first thing he does is run the same test you did for every venue. Then he will build his eq according to the test results and then transfers it over to his mixer as well. He did say that this process will not give you 100% "Pro" results, but he did assure me that it will provide a much better mix, then if you did nothing at all. I hope this makes sense to you and honestly, I still have many questions concerning this whole process as well. I am simply explaining what little bit of knowledge that was given to me.

 

[mjbphotos]

I agree that setting up on one of the walls with the fireplace would have been better - right now the back of the room is extremely assymmetrical. Also didn't say anything about a ceiling cloud.

 

[Mack Caster]

I agree that setting up on one of the walls with the fireplace would have been better - right now the back of the room is extremely assymmetrical. Also didn't say anything about a ceiling cloud.

Look at slide #4.

 

[Krakadon]

What did they advise you to use instead?

They mentioned several brands and models. They have a detailed SOP for how to take the measurements. Sorry I'm not allowed to post links yet.

 

[Krakadon]

I agree that setting up on one of the walls with the fireplace would have been better - right now the back of the room is extremely assymmetrical. Also didn't say anything about a ceiling cloud.

That would block the doors.

 

[Krakadon]

i hear ya brother, but all is not lost. I have a friend who runs sound over in dc for all their big shin digs and i was talking about your situation as well as my own, since we are both really in the same boat. (boat = bust out another thousand".

lol

 

[miroslav]

I agree with you 100%. Most of this will boil down to the personality of the person doing the mixing.

This is what took me so long to wrap my head around, when I started my quest months ago. Then someone explained it to me like this and the light bulb went off instantly in my head. "You can't mix what you can't hear". That's what this program does. It tells you what frequencies are artificially boosted as well as cut, in your mixing space. So if your room size is outside the bolt area, you are going to have to make extreme changes to get it right.

If your room is artificially cutting 300hz to 400hz, and 800hz to 900hz, then as you listen and if you have trained your ear, you will be inclined to maybe boost those areas.

I don't disagree that the less deep peaks/nulls your room has, the better...my point is that no one listens to music like that.

When you do a measurement, you're running a frequency sweep of individual frequencies, basically one at a time.
So of course, the measurement is made of those individual frequencies during the sweep, and you end up with the plot showing the nulls and peaks.

No one hears music in that manner, and no one really makes mixing decisions in that manner. We hear everything at the same time. IOW...when we listen to music, we don't really hear individual frequencies or zoom in on them unless the nulls/peaks really stick out. That's why I said you should focus on the big nulls/peaks...but trying to attain some kind of flat room response before you feel the space is valid for mixing, will be probably a never-ending quest.

Look for the deep/wide nulls/peaks...the lesser stuff is either masked or balanced out by the adjoining frequency bands pulling in the opposite direction, and for the smaller stuff, your hearing "fills in the blanks" to a degree.

I'm just saying that you treat to a point, and then you learn the room. That's what they do even in the bigger, "pro" studios. Once you get to a good translation stage...then the room response is no longer a concern.
It's like the pros who insisted on using crappy Yamaha NS10 monitors...they learned them, and after that, the shitty frequency response of the NS10 monitors didn't matter any more.

 

[miroslav]

That would block the doors.

Your mix setup is pretty "narrow", and doesn't look any wider than the sofa...why would it block the doors?

 

[rob aylestone]

I'm really sorry guys, but I see so many people chasing their tales, especially using ease in venues. They wander around waving their mics, making odd noises and producing wonderful graphs, waterfall plots and determine that this wrong, that is wrong and to cure it we need to do this, and that, and usually spend money. Many are very old listed buildings and then the people come in, and the acoustics change and suddenly get hugely better. The Victorian architects didn't have prediction and measurement software, just ears and experience.

What I meant with my glib comment about what does it sound like is that what it sounds like often argues with what it looks like!

Does the room sound dull or bright, obviously heavy at the bottom or missing the bottom totally - does it sound just dull, or have peculiar nodes where the sound changes with just a bit of ear movement. I always listen to every space I work in, and my ears tell me what it's likely to need to tame it. If you see a small room with parallel walls and surfaces that are hard you know it's going to sound boxy - I looked at all those wonderful plots and just thought that I had no idea what it sounds like. I cannot (what is the audio version of visualise?) imagine what it sounds from those. Confused? Yep, unbalanced, unfocussed, weird stereo image as the response clearly changes with frequency - but I have no idea if I could live with it.

 

[Mack Caster]

They mentioned several brands and models. They have a detailed SOP for how to take the measurements. Sorry I'm not allowed to post links yet.

Here ya go Brother. Detailed SOP From John Sayer.