Room Treatment and Monitor Choice

uncle sixer

uncle sixer

Member
2 questions in one, I will try to keep it short and to the point.

I am almost done an attic renovation that will partially be a home studio/mancave (both playing guitar live/recording and listening-back/mixing). Dimensions are about 12x16 feet for the studio side, part of the ceiling is about 7.5 and other parts slope down. My acoustic treatment plan is probably to hit first reflection points (side walls, ceiling, and back wall) with diy absorbers made from 3.5 inch roxul safe n sound. and then make two 7 inch safe n sound bass traps (prob 16x40 inches with several inch gap behind).

First question: I am a bit of a minimalist (and trying for a reasonable budget)... is that enough acoustic treatment to be WORTH IT and is safe n sound decent to use? (Disclaimer: I know there are some health concerns, have listened to both sides of that argument, and will take reasonable precautions... also I have some spare safe n sound already here to use)... Or do I really need to buy compressed fiberglass for absorption and some pink fluffy for bass trapping?

Then, given the fact that my room will probably still have some deficiencies, I was thinking that buying monitors that deliver a lot of bass, and especially with ported boxes, might be counterproductive in this room... so I was thinking about diying a pair of auratone-type monitors (single-driver, sealed box).

Second question: Am I correct in thinking that If I am not filling the room with 40 Hz, then a lack of bass-treatment at 40 Hz is acceptable? I imagine my diy auratones will respond to about 100 Hz (then I can listen on my home stereo for a more full-range experience when I want to do that)

Thanks for any advice. I know I don't want to waste time buying "acoustic treatment" that looks nice but doesn't perform and I know I don't want to buy expensive monitors that will be sub-par in my room... but other than that I am a noob on this.

Jamie
 
Safe'n'Sound is fine if it's framed and covered with reasonably tight but breathable fabric. The fibers are not going to spontaneously explode into the room. If it's a small space, it's hard to over treat. I used 2 x 12-packs of the stuff (16"x48"x3.5" size) in my 11'x11' space.

I would get real monitors of a size appropriate for your studio/mixing space. IYou really want the top and mids to be clear. An acoustic guitar will have frequencies down to 82Hz, lower if you ever play in drop-D, and you will want some bass presence in the monitors, though you don't need a sub. have 5" Yamahas, and augment that with a couple sets of decent headphones. The 6" driver is probably better, but budget determined that choice, and I get by Ok. (At least I think I do - and it's a really small space, too.)
 
Remember that Auratones are pretty unpleasant speakers from a sound quality perspective. This type of speaker, along with others of it's type are not designed to be accurate, truthfull and representative of what you are recording, but a good example of what people will hear in less, er, positive acoustics.

The speakers I use in my second location have less bass, and the speakers (RCF 5") gently roll away the bass. They're useless for anything with detail in the bass - electric, acousic or synth bass sounds are just feeble. I have never been able to predict a room's bass response, so I'd get speakers that can reproduce the kind of music you will be creating, and then treat the room to make it sound the best it can, once you have squirted some test signals through the speakers and listened to what the room does to it. Don't forget sometimes the room works in your favour too - it's not guaranteed to be bad. Strange shaped rooms can often be a surprise.
 
As the prior posts alluded, I would focus on buying the monitors you want/need for appropriate playback, then at worse treat the room for whatever deficiencies reveal themselves. Along that line, I would get monitors first THEN see what needs addressing. You're guessing otherwise, and really there's no reason to put cart before horse. Get the studio setup with a mindfulness to where treatments *might* go, then decide what needs to be done (if anything). For example, I have zero treatment due to what's in the room with me and how close I'm actually sitting (about 3-4 feet) from the monitors during playback. The room is objectively fine with regards to sound reproduction, but even if it wasn't I'd likely have a hard time noticing being so close to the monitors. The distance from the monitors to listener is definitely a factor needing to be taken into account.

I'm using 8" monitors and still have a dedicated studio sub, with a fairly low high-pass filter so the sub only does the heaviest lifting starting at like 55-ish hertz. I make music that I need the lower frequencies (hard rock, metal, some various orchestral and electronic). If you're only an acoustic guitar player then you can get away without, but anyone with drums in their music IMO need to hear pretty low or you're not catching the kick and floor tom's frequencies.

One thing not discussed outright is recording, if you're looking to capture the room as a function of the recording's sound then the likelihood of needing to treat increases. Again, my mindset for acoustic and vocal recording is to have the source very close to the mics so the room is effectively removed from the equation. I add my desired reverb based on each song and whether it's an instrument or vocal. IE -- micing close to the source allows me more control over the final product. Micing close eliminates most concerns for room treatment. So if that fits your needs, there you go. If expecting to record a vocalist who stands feet away from the mic or a full band, or drums, with overheads, then treatment is likely needed.
 
Last edited:
Good responses, thanks. This is all still in the planning phase since I really need to finish the other half of the attic before I move music stuff up. I am probably about 2 months out from actually using the space as a studio, so I will keep looking at options for monitors for now.

That being said, I know the auratone-style is not known for sounding "good", but is known to be a workhorse when used as intended. Coming from the untreated 10x10 room I am in now and using my wife's cheap old bookshelf speakers from her college days, anything will be an improvement ;) I have tended to rely on my headphones to really hear bass well, but the 'phones do get tiring sometimes.
 
Pinky said:
As the prior posts alluded, I would focus on buying the monitors you want/need for appropriate playback, then at worse treat the room for whatever deficiencies reveal themselves. Along that line, I would get monitors first THEN see what needs addressing. You're guessing otherwise, and really there's no reason to put cart before horse. Get the studio setup with a mindfulness to where treatments *might* go, then decide what needs to be done (if anything). For example, I have zero treatment due to what's in the room with me and how close I'm actually sitting (about 3-4 feet) from the monitors during playback. The room is objectively fine with regards to sound reproduction, but even if it wasn't I'd likely have a hard time noticing being so close to the monitors. The distance from the monitors to listener is definitely a factor needing to be taken into account.
Click to expand...
That's how many get it done. Might not need it. Or substitute the method for boundary layer. Position each layer out at the melodic boundary. What's the length of a low E note's wave on bass? 27 feet. Stretch those cables and cords.

Never point the microphone at the source you are trying to record.
 
I think you’ve maybe missed the point a bit. Auratones were really horrible and had always been an ‘extra’ to decent monitors. Switch to them to check, then go back to nice sounding ones, never pleasant to listen to. This was not the same as the Yamaha NS10 thing, where they’re just bass light, but you can mix on them. That’s what I have with the RCFs. Original Auratones were designed to mimic radio-cassette and early portable audio that people were using that just had two small speakers in a plastic box. Nothing wrong with bass light, small decent speakers, but just not original auratones. The latest ones have changed it seems. The current ones actually now sound much better and hold up against others. Clearly they had to change to be saleable to the home studio market. Buying new is fine, but second hand could give a shock. They’re rather expensive mind.
 
Yes, get some decent monitors. There is a bit of a 'Golden Rule' in audio reproduction that every part of the chain should have a frequency response* that extends at least half an octave beyond the thing you are trying to reproduce, so in the case of guitar you really need a speaker that has bit of guts left at 50-55Hz. Distortion in speakers rises very rapidly as frequency descends so you do not want to be pushing a "100Hz" speaker to reproduce 80Hz.

I have had my Tannoy 5As for five or six years now and in my living room, which about the same as the OP's floor plan but with an 8.5ft ceiling, they produce very creditable bass at my listening position 6-7ft away. I listen at around 75dBC.

*But NOT bat-bothering response int the radio Mvave! Some electronics firms make much of their preamps ability to reach 200kHz. I call that daft and a recipe for RFI misery.

Dave.
 
keith.rogers said:
I would get real monitors of a size appropriate for your studio/mixing space. IYou really want the top and mids to be clear. An acoustic guitar will have frequencies down to 82Hz, lower if you ever play in drop-D, and you will want some bass presence in the monitors, though you don't need a sub.
Click to expand...
If you are getting below 100hz with your guitar you will have many problems with your mix - that space doesn't accommodate Bass Guitar, Kick and a Guitar.
 
uncle sixer said:
Thanks for any advice. I know I don't want to waste time buying "acoustic treatment" that looks nice but doesn't perform and I know I don't want to buy expensive monitors that will be sub-par in my room... but other than that I am a noob on this.
Click to expand...
Buy the Best Monitors you can afford - and then mildly treat your room - for the most part minimal treatment will not be noticeable - if you want an acoustically sound room - I feel you have to go full boat.
 
Alright, in spite of the fact that I want to move into the room this weekend and get the new studio organized, I need to first concentrate on finishing the other half of the attic... not very glamorous, but it does give time to shop for monitors that will have more complete response as well as time to see how the room acoustics actually play out.

Thanks for the help.
 
I have very few rules, but the one that always pops up time and time again is that until I hear a room, I simply have no clue what will work best. That said - once the walls are up, and the space empty - that is always a great clue as to what treatment will be necessary, so at that point I usually have a few on the shopping list and lots off it. Until there are walls, floor and ceiling and nothing else, even when I have known the room size and shape, it's frequently a surprise when you stand there and clap your hands.
 

JBL LSR305 & LSR308

JBL’s new LSR3 series brings technology from the company’s premium monitor range within reach of the home studio.
www.soundonsound.com www.soundonsound.com

Those monitors get a better than average report for monitors in their price range. I suspect the smaller speakers would be better in your room.

Dave.
 
rob aylestone said:
I think you’ve maybe missed the point a bit. Auratones were really horrible and had always been an ‘extra’ to decent monitors. Switch to them to check, then go back to nice sounding ones, never pleasant to listen to. This was not the same as the Yamaha NS10 thing, where they’re just bass light, but you can mix on them. That’s what I have with the RCFs. Original Auratones were designed to mimic radio-cassette and early portable audio that people were using that just had two small speakers in a plastic box. Nothing wrong with bass light, small decent speakers, but just not original auratones. The latest ones have changed it seems. The current ones actually now sound much better and hold up against others. Clearly they had to change to be saleable to the home studio market. Buying new is fine, but second hand could give a shock. They’re rather expensive mind.
Click to expand...
thats my understanding too, the storys from studios like GoldStar studio days, a mix could be sent to the DJ and played over the radio in a car and then re-mixed and over time these "car crap" "average joe car speakers' were brought into the studios of that era.
probably prevented running to the car to see how the mix would sound.
the concept was having less hassle of checking a mix and so the small car like speakers were brought in the studio.

NS10 craze is a great rabbit hole read too, similar to the Auratone concept , of being used in the studio to hear "average joes home HiFi" to play a mix.....
in addition to the pro-studio monitors.

Theres some pictures of George Martin in AIR Studio with some small speakers on the huge console. huge speakers in the walls.
that Clearmountain engineer told some stories of the NS10's and he even mentioned he was using small plastic pc computer speakers in the 90's for a cheap-speaker check. The NS10 rabbit hole went really deep with toilet paper over the tweeter etc.... successful engineers did it so the masses followed.

what would be today? earbuds, smart phone speakers? or cars with super subs? I work at a college and the "young" seem to have a lot of earbuds and headphones on, probably spotify and itune jukeboxes... do they still load up car stereos with subs and hi-end amps?

evolution....HR small rooms probably a good match for smaller speakers... aka nearfield
 
Over Christmas, I lost my IEMs that I use for that period as talkback monitors, just one ear in, people yelling and cueing. I bought some cheap spares on Amazon, till I could find the good ones. I’m amazed at how different music sounded when I brought 4 back to the hotel to use on Spotify. They all sounded totally different and some awful on music. Some so bad that they turned candy dulfers saxophone into a kazoo! I looked at their reviews on line. People were talking about subtle differences and nuances. Two were truly dire! Using monitors for mixing that are coloured in this way is really bad,
 
Last edited:
Papanate said:
If you are getting below 100hz with your guitar you will have many problems with your mix - that space doesn't accommodate Bass Guitar, Kick and a Guitar.
Click to expand...
Well, I have treated the snot out of the space, but I don't do much at all with bass and/or kick anymore, and if I did, I'd use headphones a lot, and do more validation outside the room.
 
keith.rogers said:
Well, I have treated the snot out of the space, but I don't do much at all with bass and/or kick anymore, and if I did, I'd use headphones a lot, and do more validation outside the room.
Click to expand...
Right - my point is Guitar shouldn't be in the 100 Hz range - of course if you don't have a Kick or Bass - or Synths living down there - then I think you can mix the 100 hz and below all you want.
 
Papanate said:
Right - my point is Guitar shouldn't be in the 100 Hz range - of course if you don't have a Kick or Bass - or Synths living down there - then I think you can mix the 100 hz and below all you want.
Click to expand...
I'm still a bit confused about why 100Hz is relevant. Guitar in normal tuning has 82Hz for the open E, and if you uses drop-D (not unusual on acoustic), it goes a bit lower. It is, technically, a "bass" instrument close to a cello in pitch/range. (For unknown/historical reasons, guitar notation is in the treble clef, but written an octave higher than it actually is played on the instrument. But, as usual, I digress...)

AND, I'm using near-field (HS5) monitors, which do go pretty flat down to 70Hz. The point is to keep the room out of the whole thing when it's a really small space, especially a square one like mine.
 
I mentioned 100 hz because if I build a sealed box, full range paper cone driver, it would have fairly flat response to 100 Hz, maybe 90 ish. It would still have some response below that, but not flat/full energy response as the bass frequencies would naturally roll off.
 
Er? You put some non-specified paper coned driver in a box of unstated dimensions and no mention of internal filling and you say "it would have a fairly flat frequency response to 100Hz" !! Have you never read one of Phil Ward's dissertations on speakers? Only THE most carefully designed drivers and cabinets get close to even +/- 3dB over 100Hz to say 10kHz.

I have never seen the point of 'grot boxes' except maybe for post tracking 'adjustment' My view is you use the best, most faithful speakers you can afford and get as true as possible a recording of the performance...THEN cluck about with it afterwards...IF you have to.

Dave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top