live or dead?

jnorman

New member
i am still rather confused about whether i should make my room (17x23x8' - sheetrock walls and ceiling, carpet floor) more live or more dead. i mostly track classical type instruments in multi-track arrangemtns. if i make the room mostly dead, it seems it would provide a better degree of isolation for each instrument when mixed, and allow for digital verb to be added effectively. OTOH, the room wont be as much fun to play in. if i make it more live, it will sound better to the players, but it seems like it will result in any remainng acoustic issues to be exacerbated during mixing of several tracks. ethan says hard floor, treated ceiling and walls using broadband absorber panels. putting in a nice hard floor will cost around $4-5K - how effective is it to just use a couple 4x8 sheets of plywood under a performer compared to a whole hard floor?
 
You can do that if it's TEMPORARY - by that, I mean take up the plywood when you're not using it. Mites, mold, fungus, etc, all like to live in carpet when it can't breathe.

If you were to frame some absorptive panels with feet so they can stand on their own, you can move them into place around your mix area when mixing, and move them out of the way when you want the room more live.

The only downside of a live room I'm thinking of is if you need to do punch-in's to fix parts, instead of one continuous recording per track - it's hard to pull that off with much live ambience. Much easier to record dead, splice tracks, then add digital reverb which covers up the punch points some. As you said though, players don't like it much... Steve
 
Back
Top